Thank goodness someone is finally taking note of the gross inadequacy of PA’s minimum auto liability limits, and is attempting to increase the $15/30/5 to something more substantial – say at least $25/50/10 or higher. There are a few states that – because of political pandering – have failed miserably to increase minimum limits set in the 1960’s or early 1970’s so as to reflect current monetary values. It is a virtual certainty that insurers will oppose any increase – so the idea must be a good one from the perspective of the public.
From an E&O standpoint, this might help agents too. Now, when a customer absolutely insists on the minimums against the express advice of the agent, after the accident occurs, the customer sometimes denounces the agent for not recommending the higher limits despite what really occured. No agent wants customers to be underinsured but the low auto limits sometimes are chosen because customers choose to ignore the agent’s advice.
Great idea, but I’d personally put the PD limit at 25k.
Why there are still states with less then 30/60/25 requirements is a mystery to me. With today’s medical costs, it’s can add up to far more then that very quickly.
The reason why PA auto minimum limits (and some other states) are so low is, as I think I mentioned, that politicians are too afraid to increase insurance costs for consumers – despite the fact that the pols know limits are inadequate. The movement to mandate increased limits must be a strong one – because it will also have to overcome insurance company resistance to being forced to provide higher limits to some drivers. Need to get some real horror stories of people injured by underinsured drivers and have the newspapers headline this problem.
You’re right re the fear of adding to cost. An increase in coverage will mean higher rates for poorer folks but the tradeoff is that they are less impacted from an accident than they would have been with less coverage. I note that the sponsors are all who are very sensitive to the plight of the poor (Hughes, Leach et al)and so it appears that their concerns re higher costs were met or they would not have signed on. I look at that as a positive sign re the bill’s prospects for passage.
I agree, higher limits are needed.
In this recession, there are some venues in ALL states where some of the peeps will just drive uninsured & don’t give a damn.
problem is their mind-set usually makes them damgerous drivers, ..”because what have I got to lose”
This brings us to Enforcement & Penalty
Make it severe enough with a mandated minimum sentence for driving uninsured (in most cases), and , believe me, you’ll see a change
Partly right, Wayne, but mostly wrong. Yes, people who have assets buy liability insurance so the assets will be protected. But people who do not have assets (now) will never be able to have assets in the future if there is an unpaid liability judgment against them. In many respects, this latter category need liability insurance as much as, or more, than those who have assets. But this ignores the basic reason for liability insurance – to compensate you and I if we’re injured by the negligence of another driver. There must be a penalty for such behavior, or in a generation or two, no one will act responsibly behind the wheel.
I think that everyone needs a refresher in what liability insurance is so I will help out. Liability insurance protects the assets of the person or entity purchasing the coverage. If there are no assets to protect, there is no need for liability insurance.
To properly address the issues proferred by the legislature, increase the medical minimum. In this way, people who need the coverage will have it without asking anyone to purchase coverage they do not need.
As far as properly covering a client, increase the uninsured/underinsured limits to protect from the lack of liability coverage on someone else’s part.
“The current limits don’t stand up to today’s steep medical expenses,” says the IA&B, but I wonder if the trial lobby isn’t behind this. The current limits don’t stand up to today’s steep plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, I’d Bet….whose ox is being gored?
I carry more than I need and always have, first at the insistence of my agent but after I started working in the industry, I see the foolhardiness of low-balling yourself. I just can’t help but comment, though, about trial lawyers who most assuredly add to the cost of any litigation. Read about a guy who lives on Pebble Beach’s 12th fairway, with a couple of “spreads” in OK and TX, and the name of his hacienda said it all, “LUCKY STRIKE” becuase his claim to fame is the successful outcome of suing big tobacco… too bad lawyers are needed because the costs get skewed by their take of the take…
Maybe lawyers will benefit to some degree. But the real winners are (a)the injured person and (b) the auto owner/driver. The injured wins because more (it not all) of their actual damages will be paid to them (and likely without the need for a lawyer), the insured owner/driver because they won’t be saddled with an unpaid judgment against them that destroys their credit ratings.
ABOUT TIME!!!
Our current minimum limits are laughable.. the fact that you can drive around with only $5000 in PD coverage is crazy. Jack it up!
Thank goodness someone is finally taking note of the gross inadequacy of PA’s minimum auto liability limits, and is attempting to increase the $15/30/5 to something more substantial – say at least $25/50/10 or higher. There are a few states that – because of political pandering – have failed miserably to increase minimum limits set in the 1960’s or early 1970’s so as to reflect current monetary values. It is a virtual certainty that insurers will oppose any increase – so the idea must be a good one from the perspective of the public.
From an E&O standpoint, this might help agents too. Now, when a customer absolutely insists on the minimums against the express advice of the agent, after the accident occurs, the customer sometimes denounces the agent for not recommending the higher limits despite what really occured. No agent wants customers to be underinsured but the low auto limits sometimes are chosen because customers choose to ignore the agent’s advice.
Great idea, but I’d personally put the PD limit at 25k.
Why there are still states with less then 30/60/25 requirements is a mystery to me. With today’s medical costs, it’s can add up to far more then that very quickly.
The reason why PA auto minimum limits (and some other states) are so low is, as I think I mentioned, that politicians are too afraid to increase insurance costs for consumers – despite the fact that the pols know limits are inadequate. The movement to mandate increased limits must be a strong one – because it will also have to overcome insurance company resistance to being forced to provide higher limits to some drivers. Need to get some real horror stories of people injured by underinsured drivers and have the newspapers headline this problem.
You’re right re the fear of adding to cost. An increase in coverage will mean higher rates for poorer folks but the tradeoff is that they are less impacted from an accident than they would have been with less coverage. I note that the sponsors are all who are very sensitive to the plight of the poor (Hughes, Leach et al)and so it appears that their concerns re higher costs were met or they would not have signed on. I look at that as a positive sign re the bill’s prospects for passage.
I agree, higher limits are needed.
In this recession, there are some venues in ALL states where some of the peeps will just drive uninsured & don’t give a damn.
problem is their mind-set usually makes them damgerous drivers, ..”because what have I got to lose”
This brings us to Enforcement & Penalty
Make it severe enough with a mandated minimum sentence for driving uninsured (in most cases), and , believe me, you’ll see a change
Partly right, Wayne, but mostly wrong. Yes, people who have assets buy liability insurance so the assets will be protected. But people who do not have assets (now) will never be able to have assets in the future if there is an unpaid liability judgment against them. In many respects, this latter category need liability insurance as much as, or more, than those who have assets. But this ignores the basic reason for liability insurance – to compensate you and I if we’re injured by the negligence of another driver. There must be a penalty for such behavior, or in a generation or two, no one will act responsibly behind the wheel.
I think that everyone needs a refresher in what liability insurance is so I will help out. Liability insurance protects the assets of the person or entity purchasing the coverage. If there are no assets to protect, there is no need for liability insurance.
To properly address the issues proferred by the legislature, increase the medical minimum. In this way, people who need the coverage will have it without asking anyone to purchase coverage they do not need.
As far as properly covering a client, increase the uninsured/underinsured limits to protect from the lack of liability coverage on someone else’s part.
“The current limits don’t stand up to today’s steep medical expenses,” says the IA&B, but I wonder if the trial lobby isn’t behind this. The current limits don’t stand up to today’s steep plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, I’d Bet….whose ox is being gored?
I carry more than I need and always have, first at the insistence of my agent but after I started working in the industry, I see the foolhardiness of low-balling yourself. I just can’t help but comment, though, about trial lawyers who most assuredly add to the cost of any litigation. Read about a guy who lives on Pebble Beach’s 12th fairway, with a couple of “spreads” in OK and TX, and the name of his hacienda said it all, “LUCKY STRIKE” becuase his claim to fame is the successful outcome of suing big tobacco… too bad lawyers are needed because the costs get skewed by their take of the take…
Maybe lawyers will benefit to some degree. But the real winners are (a)the injured person and (b) the auto owner/driver. The injured wins because more (it not all) of their actual damages will be paid to them (and likely without the need for a lawyer), the insured owner/driver because they won’t be saddled with an unpaid judgment against them that destroys their credit ratings.