This would be a great, and inexpensive, improvement to New Yorker’s auto insurance policies. The percentage of motorists who have no auto insurance, and those who carry only minimum limits, creates a very significant exposure to others on the roads. It will also offset the sales activities of those Producers who “low-ball” auto premiums by not offering or quoting increased UM/UIM limits. I consider my UM/UIM coverages to be the most important auto coverages I carry.
I agree with this law. I always sell SUM to match BI no matter what. Why would you give a stranger good coverage but not yourself when that same stranger is under insured or not insured at all???
I agree with this law. I always sell SUM to match BI, no matter what. Why would you give a stranger good coverage but not protect yourself in the even the same stranger is under insured or not insured at all???
UM/UIM should be totally redundant. I buy medical insurance to cover my medical bills and I buy disability insurance in case I can’t return to work. I don’t gamble that if I’m injured it will be in an auto accident. I need coverage 24/7, not just when I’m in my car.
You have an agent who failed to explain UM/UIM to you. It covers you while you are in your car, in someone elses car, or as a pedestrian. It affords you a source of compensation for that which you would obtain in a lawsuit against the responsible driver but for the fact that the driver didn’t have insurance, or had low liability limits. Much broader than just medical or disability insurance – both of which are good coverages, of course.
No, I understand UM/UIM. It allows me to buy insurance for someone else in case they don’t have assets or insurance of their own. Then on top of my economic exposure (which I need to cover in case my accident doesn’t involve a car), I can still recover for non-economic damages. No thanks. I’ll use my money for something useful, not for a potential to recover for pain and suffering (which money doesn’t cure anyway).
Go your way in ignorance of the real purposes and reasons are for UM and UIM – you can never buy a DI policy that will cover the legal liability of another party – and some day you may need the supplemental UM/UIM – but won’t have it. Most of the insurance world (and informed purchasers of insurance) and lawyers disagree with you. But I guess you know more about the subject than trained and educated insurance professionals, and lawyers.
I don’t buy insurance to cover the legal liability of another party. I buy insurance to cover my losses. Please educate me on the economic losses that UM/UIM cover that I can’t cover with my first party insurance. I understand that UM/UIM may provide opportunity to recover non-economic loss. I can live without that opportunity
Then live with it if you wish, that’s your option. But all knowledgable agents and insurance company empoyees understand that if you are injure by an uninsured or underinsured driver, in your car, in another car, or as a pedestrian, the only type of insurance available to pay you the legal liability damages you’re entitled to is UM/UIM. And the probability of such injuries is very high. Would you own a home and not insure it against loss? UM and UIM are like insuring your body, just as you would your home.
I think we’ve found our real difference of opinion. I intend to insure only against economic loss. I don’t insure all I’m “entitled” to recover. I live in PA and select a “limited tort” policy and low UM/UIM limits.
I previously stated that you had the option of doing that which you believed appropriate for your purposes (though not necessarily your needs). I will respect your right to make your own choices. But, as an Insurance Producer (over 50 years), extensively educated (law degree) and an insurance educator (30+ years, 40 states), and as an expert witnees in insurance litigation (almost 1,700 cases in 24 states) I would advise you that you are putting yourself and your financial future at risk by not carring maximum limits, particuarly UM/UIM. You may do well to talk to a competent, smart agent (if you can find one) and an attorney about this.
This would be a great, and inexpensive, improvement to New Yorker’s auto insurance policies. The percentage of motorists who have no auto insurance, and those who carry only minimum limits, creates a very significant exposure to others on the roads. It will also offset the sales activities of those Producers who “low-ball” auto premiums by not offering or quoting increased UM/UIM limits. I consider my UM/UIM coverages to be the most important auto coverages I carry.
I take issue with producers who low ball UM/UIM coverage to make the price more attractive. Very unethical.
I agree with this law. I always sell SUM to match BI no matter what. Why would you give a stranger good coverage but not yourself when that same stranger is under insured or not insured at all???
I agree with this law. I always sell SUM to match BI, no matter what. Why would you give a stranger good coverage but not protect yourself in the even the same stranger is under insured or not insured at all???
UM/UIM should be totally redundant. I buy medical insurance to cover my medical bills and I buy disability insurance in case I can’t return to work. I don’t gamble that if I’m injured it will be in an auto accident. I need coverage 24/7, not just when I’m in my car.
You have an agent who failed to explain UM/UIM to you. It covers you while you are in your car, in someone elses car, or as a pedestrian. It affords you a source of compensation for that which you would obtain in a lawsuit against the responsible driver but for the fact that the driver didn’t have insurance, or had low liability limits. Much broader than just medical or disability insurance – both of which are good coverages, of course.
No, I understand UM/UIM. It allows me to buy insurance for someone else in case they don’t have assets or insurance of their own. Then on top of my economic exposure (which I need to cover in case my accident doesn’t involve a car), I can still recover for non-economic damages. No thanks. I’ll use my money for something useful, not for a potential to recover for pain and suffering (which money doesn’t cure anyway).
Go your way in ignorance of the real purposes and reasons are for UM and UIM – you can never buy a DI policy that will cover the legal liability of another party – and some day you may need the supplemental UM/UIM – but won’t have it. Most of the insurance world (and informed purchasers of insurance) and lawyers disagree with you. But I guess you know more about the subject than trained and educated insurance professionals, and lawyers.
I don’t buy insurance to cover the legal liability of another party. I buy insurance to cover my losses. Please educate me on the economic losses that UM/UIM cover that I can’t cover with my first party insurance. I understand that UM/UIM may provide opportunity to recover non-economic loss. I can live without that opportunity
Then live with it if you wish, that’s your option. But all knowledgable agents and insurance company empoyees understand that if you are injure by an uninsured or underinsured driver, in your car, in another car, or as a pedestrian, the only type of insurance available to pay you the legal liability damages you’re entitled to is UM/UIM. And the probability of such injuries is very high. Would you own a home and not insure it against loss? UM and UIM are like insuring your body, just as you would your home.
I think we’ve found our real difference of opinion. I intend to insure only against economic loss. I don’t insure all I’m “entitled” to recover. I live in PA and select a “limited tort” policy and low UM/UIM limits.
I previously stated that you had the option of doing that which you believed appropriate for your purposes (though not necessarily your needs). I will respect your right to make your own choices. But, as an Insurance Producer (over 50 years), extensively educated (law degree) and an insurance educator (30+ years, 40 states), and as an expert witnees in insurance litigation (almost 1,700 cases in 24 states) I would advise you that you are putting yourself and your financial future at risk by not carring maximum limits, particuarly UM/UIM. You may do well to talk to a competent, smart agent (if you can find one) and an attorney about this.