Agency says…. no argument that limits should be higher – but the question is would you rather have people carry insurance at a lower limit or just not buy auto insurance because they can’t afford 100/300 (or even 25/50). Arizona currently has (statistically speaking) 11% uninsured motorist. If the FR limit is raised to 25/50 and the uninsured pops up to 20% due to the increase cost — everyone pays more for UM coverage. It is a chicken and egg argument.
Driving is a privilege. Therefore, if someone cannot afford car insurance, they should not own a car. There is such a thing as mass-transit, ride sharing, etc.
I’d suggest an increase in the penalties for driving uninsured, ideally at the same time as this bill goes through. I know it’s not a solution for every instance, but people considering driving uninsured because their bill went up $20~$30 (or whatever it ends up being) more a month due to the increased limits might be more inclined to think twice?
Just an idea…
I would have no heartburn with higher limits and I don’t think price is an issue. The cheapest part of an insurance policy is the liability cost. In Wyoming our minimums are 25/50/25, the difference between that and 50/100/100 is about 2 bucks a month, maybe, for most people. $10,000 barely covers the cost of an emergency room visit let alone ambulance fees.
AS an Agent in Arizona, The cost for Liability is a lot higher here than in Wyoming. plus, the current state minimum for BI is 15/30 and the property damage is 10,000. The difference between the state minimum (depending on zip codes etc) isn’t too much higher but can still gouge an already depleted paycheck. With the newer cars being a lot safer for the most part, the state minimum is still good at covering for the BI for the most part. the property damage however, should be higher as there are a lot fewer cars on the road worth less.
You’ve got to remember, that each state has a different rate system they use, especially when you have more populated areas than others, so the cost will definitely differ depending. California and New York rates are even Higher than ours.
Using the argument of impact on the paycheck is lunacy at it’s finest. The real point is that the driver is responsible for the injuries they cause to another person regardless of the limits they carry. Problem is that most of the folks that carry 15/30/10 are suit proof as they have no assets to compensate the people that they hurt so the remainder of us end up purchasing UI/UIM coverage to protect ourselves. If what you say is true and 15/30 is in fact adequate than why has UI/UIM gone up as fast in rate over the last 15-20 years?
Driving is a privilege not a right and in exchange for that privilege you as the driver are financially responsible for injuries that you may cause.
If these folks can not afford the increase in liability premium then they probably should sell the car and ride a bike.
It’s not a huge difference here in California either, through a little more than $2 (perhaps more like $15 or $20), however still as small amount over 6 months. However while I support higher limits, the problem arises when you have the typical 15/30 people bumped up into 50/100, they bring the adverse selection with them. Keep in mind, 15/30 drivers have higher accident rate than the people who are at the higher limits. The higher limit one has, the less accident frequency they have simply because quality people who play by the rules tend go higher limits and the actuaries show this.
I am an injury attorney in Phoenix, Arizona at Kester Law Group. Before opening my firm I worked as an insurance adjuster and an insurance defense attorney for the nations largest insurers. I agree with many of the comments posted and believe minimum limits should have been increased a long time ago. Even at 25/50 many people will not be made whole after an accident. Knowing this it is extremely wise to beef up the underinsured/uninsured and even medical payments coverage.
Hello California! How long has it been since it’s been 5/30/5? Goodness, at least 30 years if not longer! Minimums should really be 100/300/50.
Agency says…. no argument that limits should be higher – but the question is would you rather have people carry insurance at a lower limit or just not buy auto insurance because they can’t afford 100/300 (or even 25/50). Arizona currently has (statistically speaking) 11% uninsured motorist. If the FR limit is raised to 25/50 and the uninsured pops up to 20% due to the increase cost — everyone pays more for UM coverage. It is a chicken and egg argument.
Driving is a privilege. Therefore, if someone cannot afford car insurance, they should not own a car. There is such a thing as mass-transit, ride sharing, etc.
I’d suggest an increase in the penalties for driving uninsured, ideally at the same time as this bill goes through. I know it’s not a solution for every instance, but people considering driving uninsured because their bill went up $20~$30 (or whatever it ends up being) more a month due to the increased limits might be more inclined to think twice?
Just an idea…
I would have no heartburn with higher limits and I don’t think price is an issue. The cheapest part of an insurance policy is the liability cost. In Wyoming our minimums are 25/50/25, the difference between that and 50/100/100 is about 2 bucks a month, maybe, for most people. $10,000 barely covers the cost of an emergency room visit let alone ambulance fees.
AS an Agent in Arizona, The cost for Liability is a lot higher here than in Wyoming. plus, the current state minimum for BI is 15/30 and the property damage is 10,000. The difference between the state minimum (depending on zip codes etc) isn’t too much higher but can still gouge an already depleted paycheck. With the newer cars being a lot safer for the most part, the state minimum is still good at covering for the BI for the most part. the property damage however, should be higher as there are a lot fewer cars on the road worth less.
You’ve got to remember, that each state has a different rate system they use, especially when you have more populated areas than others, so the cost will definitely differ depending. California and New York rates are even Higher than ours.
AZ Agent
Using the argument of impact on the paycheck is lunacy at it’s finest. The real point is that the driver is responsible for the injuries they cause to another person regardless of the limits they carry. Problem is that most of the folks that carry 15/30/10 are suit proof as they have no assets to compensate the people that they hurt so the remainder of us end up purchasing UI/UIM coverage to protect ourselves. If what you say is true and 15/30 is in fact adequate than why has UI/UIM gone up as fast in rate over the last 15-20 years?
Driving is a privilege not a right and in exchange for that privilege you as the driver are financially responsible for injuries that you may cause.
If these folks can not afford the increase in liability premium then they probably should sell the car and ride a bike.
It’s not a huge difference here in California either, through a little more than $2 (perhaps more like $15 or $20), however still as small amount over 6 months. However while I support higher limits, the problem arises when you have the typical 15/30 people bumped up into 50/100, they bring the adverse selection with them. Keep in mind, 15/30 drivers have higher accident rate than the people who are at the higher limits. The higher limit one has, the less accident frequency they have simply because quality people who play by the rules tend go higher limits and the actuaries show this.
I am an injury attorney in Phoenix, Arizona at Kester Law Group. Before opening my firm I worked as an insurance adjuster and an insurance defense attorney for the nations largest insurers. I agree with many of the comments posted and believe minimum limits should have been increased a long time ago. Even at 25/50 many people will not be made whole after an accident. Knowing this it is extremely wise to beef up the underinsured/uninsured and even medical payments coverage.