On the plus side, your UM/UIM rates should go down… The legislators knew that imposing minimum limits and creating a market where the poorest risks are subsidized by better drivers is going to raise rates. But since it’s a zero sum game, the article failed to mention that the most irresponsible drivers are going to be much better off.
Did you really mean the most IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVERS will be better off? How, so? Personally, I hate STACKING in the rate-making equation: today I know Mr. or Ms. X has two cars, but if he or she buys a third car, how do I rate for THAT during the 30 day – or whatever the policy language gives – for a newly acquired vehicle? Duh, rates are going to increase simply to provide for the surprise multiplicative factor! I suspect the folks that will see the greatest increases will be those that must now meet the new minimum standards, whatever they are. Those would be the IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVERS. The responsible drivers who carried higher limits will also see their rates increase, but the impact for them will be less, I’m guessing. We’ve BEEN THERE-DONE THAT in Florida 20 years or so ago! Ordinary folks were screaming maniacs and we got an option to elect non-stacked uninsured motorists coverage with a properly executed and signed form; deemed informed consent. Our legislators never had the chutzpah to try to stack liability or medical payments coverage as well as UM, however. And, yes, I agree, that legislation in WI was a DEFINITE pass to the trial lawyers! What were your legislators thinking? Oh! Campaign donations, of course! Start a grass roots campaign!
Not every company is going to want to insure people at the new limits and coverages. There are probably a lot of people who are not going to be renewed by their company. Nonrenewed by one carrier and charged more by another – great work, legislative idiots!
This insurance legislation was sneaked into Wisconsin State Budget behind closed doors by Wisconsin Democrats. There was little knowledge of these hidden mandates and no public debate. The higher limits and coverage stacking features were the Democrats political payback to the trial attorneys. Wisconsin voters should be ashamed of themselves for letting this happen. They are getting what they voted for through the election process.
One major unmentioned impact is the law change will allow stacking of medical, liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist. That’s the dirty little secrect tucked inside this trash legislation! What about that representative Nelson? Huh?
I only disagree with the part of your comment indicating this was sneaked into law. I saw plenty of articles about it and the affect it would have. The sad part is, we the voters were helpless to stop our own lawmakers from dumping on us in order to benefit their largest campaign contributors, the trial lawyers.
Tom Nelson’s comment are so laughable they are sad. He knew what the outcome was going to be. This whole mess hopefully will stick to him when election time comes. Doyle already bailed out.
It just like the politicians to pass a law that adds coverage and then expects no costs to be associated with it. Get back to the fundamentals of the law and you’ll find out who is to blame. The purpose was to provide motorists with a “greater” benefit. It’s not free.
“Nelson’s assertion is “flat out wrong,” I disagree with this statement: Nelson was flat out lying. If he was just wrong that would make him grossly incompetent to vote on insurance matters.
Nelson’s constituants must be voters who still believe in the tooth fairy and free lunches.
DO YOU ALL THINK THERE WILL BE SOME COMPANIES WHICH DO NOT WANT TO WRITE THE MANDATED HIGHER LIMITS, AND CLOSE THEIR DOORS IN WISCONSIN? IF SO, THERE MAY BE LESS COMPETION AND EVEN HIGHER PREMIUMS?
When you purchase more of something of course it is going to cost more! Hello, reality check! Anyone who doesn’t know that much should not be behind the wheel of a car and sure as heck ought not to be passing laws. On the other hand, the question should be asked: was the increase in the minimum insurance needed to provide a sufficient level of protection for injuries caused by careless drivers, OR was it merely a clever ploy by the trial lawyers to make sure they would always have a fat payday? If it is the former, the legislature should be commended for doing their job and they should be intellectually honest enough to claim responsibility for the increased costs people will be required to take on. If it was the latter however, voters should throw the rascals out for violating their trust and making bad law, and then lying about it. And if you need evidence to figure out which is true, you might want to see who all took money form the trial lawyers and voted in favor of this law. So which is it?
I disagree with Actuary that UM/UIM rates will go down. First, just because liability coverage is now mandatory doesn’t mean that more people will actually purchase it. With the lower, less expensive limit options no longer available, an argument could be made that the rate of uninsured motorists may actually increase. Also with the change allowing the stacking of limits, rates will go up for all multi-car policies. Finally, I believe that there were changes to the UIM trigger as well, which will also drive up the costs of this coverage.
What were the previous limits, and what are they now? 29 years with no increase in minimums does seem a bit absurd, although I’ve been in the business 22 yrs, and none of the states I’ve dealt with have raised minimums once.
On the plus side, your UM/UIM rates should go down… The legislators knew that imposing minimum limits and creating a market where the poorest risks are subsidized by better drivers is going to raise rates. But since it’s a zero sum game, the article failed to mention that the most irresponsible drivers are going to be much better off.
Did you really mean the most IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVERS will be better off? How, so? Personally, I hate STACKING in the rate-making equation: today I know Mr. or Ms. X has two cars, but if he or she buys a third car, how do I rate for THAT during the 30 day – or whatever the policy language gives – for a newly acquired vehicle? Duh, rates are going to increase simply to provide for the surprise multiplicative factor! I suspect the folks that will see the greatest increases will be those that must now meet the new minimum standards, whatever they are. Those would be the IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVERS. The responsible drivers who carried higher limits will also see their rates increase, but the impact for them will be less, I’m guessing. We’ve BEEN THERE-DONE THAT in Florida 20 years or so ago! Ordinary folks were screaming maniacs and we got an option to elect non-stacked uninsured motorists coverage with a properly executed and signed form; deemed informed consent. Our legislators never had the chutzpah to try to stack liability or medical payments coverage as well as UM, however. And, yes, I agree, that legislation in WI was a DEFINITE pass to the trial lawyers! What were your legislators thinking? Oh! Campaign donations, of course! Start a grass roots campaign!
Not every company is going to want to insure people at the new limits and coverages. There are probably a lot of people who are not going to be renewed by their company. Nonrenewed by one carrier and charged more by another – great work, legislative idiots!
This insurance legislation was sneaked into Wisconsin State Budget behind closed doors by Wisconsin Democrats. There was little knowledge of these hidden mandates and no public debate. The higher limits and coverage stacking features were the Democrats political payback to the trial attorneys. Wisconsin voters should be ashamed of themselves for letting this happen. They are getting what they voted for through the election process.
One major unmentioned impact is the law change will allow stacking of medical, liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist. That’s the dirty little secrect tucked inside this trash legislation! What about that representative Nelson? Huh?
I only disagree with the part of your comment indicating this was sneaked into law. I saw plenty of articles about it and the affect it would have. The sad part is, we the voters were helpless to stop our own lawmakers from dumping on us in order to benefit their largest campaign contributors, the trial lawyers.
Tom Nelson’s comment are so laughable they are sad. He knew what the outcome was going to be. This whole mess hopefully will stick to him when election time comes. Doyle already bailed out.
It just like the politicians to pass a law that adds coverage and then expects no costs to be associated with it. Get back to the fundamentals of the law and you’ll find out who is to blame. The purpose was to provide motorists with a “greater” benefit. It’s not free.
“Nelson’s assertion is “flat out wrong,” I disagree with this statement: Nelson was flat out lying. If he was just wrong that would make him grossly incompetent to vote on insurance matters.
Nelson’s constituants must be voters who still believe in the tooth fairy and free lunches.
DO YOU ALL THINK THERE WILL BE SOME COMPANIES WHICH DO NOT WANT TO WRITE THE MANDATED HIGHER LIMITS, AND CLOSE THEIR DOORS IN WISCONSIN? IF SO, THERE MAY BE LESS COMPETION AND EVEN HIGHER PREMIUMS?
When you purchase more of something of course it is going to cost more! Hello, reality check! Anyone who doesn’t know that much should not be behind the wheel of a car and sure as heck ought not to be passing laws. On the other hand, the question should be asked: was the increase in the minimum insurance needed to provide a sufficient level of protection for injuries caused by careless drivers, OR was it merely a clever ploy by the trial lawyers to make sure they would always have a fat payday? If it is the former, the legislature should be commended for doing their job and they should be intellectually honest enough to claim responsibility for the increased costs people will be required to take on. If it was the latter however, voters should throw the rascals out for violating their trust and making bad law, and then lying about it. And if you need evidence to figure out which is true, you might want to see who all took money form the trial lawyers and voted in favor of this law. So which is it?
I disagree with Actuary that UM/UIM rates will go down. First, just because liability coverage is now mandatory doesn’t mean that more people will actually purchase it. With the lower, less expensive limit options no longer available, an argument could be made that the rate of uninsured motorists may actually increase. Also with the change allowing the stacking of limits, rates will go up for all multi-car policies. Finally, I believe that there were changes to the UIM trigger as well, which will also drive up the costs of this coverage.
What were the previous limits, and what are they now? 29 years with no increase in minimums does seem a bit absurd, although I’ve been in the business 22 yrs, and none of the states I’ve dealt with have raised minimums once.
The law makers lie again. What a surprise!
Wisconsin BI/PD limits were 25/50/10 and are being raised to 50/100/15.
The original bill was 100/300 BI and I think 50 PD.
Icee
Ok so all liberals state after me!
The reason insurance cost so much is, Those Greedy Insurance Companies.
Pause then say! Its Immoral!
Great, now you can call yourself a progressive instead of a liberal, You know that word doesnt go over too well.