It appears that two individuals, David & Bill K, completely understand what the coverage is & how it is rated.
What occured with this specific bill is that the GA Trial Lawyers got together and found a politician who did not understand the dynamics of UM & UIM. Further, he did not understand the rating mechanisms associated with \”premiums.\” Even after the GA DOI Commissioner, John Oxendine, advised and explained what the coverage was, how it was rated and how this would change the rates of UM/UIM coverage.
Further, I cannot recall the exact number, but Comm. Oxendine stated that his office has received over 800,000 calls and none of the employees can recall ANY calls by \”confused\” consumers regarding UM/UIM coverage… ain\’t that amazing. It appears that only our legislators, lead by those captains of intellect, aka Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, appear to be confused about the coverage.
In Texas we can stack UM. If I have $25k in UM and you are at-fault with any coverage amount but not enough to cover all my BI bills my under insured motorist will pay up to its $25k after your coverage maxes out. It applies to PD as well.
Yes the premium is higher, but what the hey….everything\’s bigger in Texas.
It is a whole lot easier to explain, too Your UM will pay when the at-fault party\’s coverage quits if it doesn\’t pay all your bills. Your insurance company subrogates. All is well.
Isn\’t underinsured motorist coverage supposed to kick in & pay for the excess over what the \”at fault\” party\’s insurance did not cover? That\’s what I believe the coverage is for… Then the victim\’s company can file suit against the \”at fault\” party if they wish to recover the paid losses due to their negligence.
If this is not correct, please provide me with some additional insight regarding this part of the UM/UIM coverage.
Senate Bill 276 has moved through the GA Senate and is moving through the GA House with seemingly little opposition.
\”Get all of what you pay for\” makes for a catchy tagline for those pushing the bill; however, it fails to recognize that people have been paying for coverage as the law currently stands (pricing is based on loss experience), not as the attorney\’s would like for it to be.
The premium increase associated with this change is likely to cause quite a few people that currently carry UM to decide to drop the coverage, thus they will be exposed if they happen to get hit by someone that is truly uninsured.
Rather than mandate the \”stacking\” of a persons underinsured motorist coverage on top of an at fault party\’s liability coverage, I think \”stacking\” should be an option that the individual could choose to pay for or choose to reject.
Senate Bill 276 will benefit few and harm many; as such, it needs to be stopped.
In most states, UM/UIM will pay for the difference between the at-fault driver\’s coverage and the amount of applicable UM/UIM. For example, a driver with 50K of BI who causes 100K of injury will be underinsured if the injured party has UM/UIM of 100K. The injured party\’s UM/UIM coverge will pay 50K, the difference between the BI limits of the tortfeasor and his UM/UIM limit. If the injured party has only 50K, he will not have any underinsured mototrist coverge because his UM/UIM limit matches the BI limit of tortfeasor. Under the Georgia proposal, in the latter circumstance, the injured party would have 50k of underinsured benefit, i.e. there would no be a comparison to or deduction of the tortfeasor\’s BI limit. (Hence the specious conclusion by the legislator that he would be \”get what he paid for.\”) In fact rates will increase substantially to cover this previously excluded, and hence not paid for, first dollar UM/UIM coverage.
Hal, that\’s what I thought too! I do find it hard to believe that there are people in leadership with the power to initiate changes for the entire state who have no clue. I think I know how that happened… is it Bill Clinton\’s college friend that did inhale?
Well, I thought it was a mistake when Texas made the UM change. But after something like 15 years of it being the way it is now, I wouldn\’t want to go back. If I have $100/$300/$100 on my UM and the doot that runs into me has the state mandated $20/$40/$15, then my UM becomes the major payor for me and any injured in my car. So my Texas policy pays without subtracting $20k off.
As an agent I like the simplicity of explaining UM without wondering about what coverage the other party has.
I have to say that I\’m not sure what the difference in premium in TX from GA, but I like it the way we have it here in Texas! If the agent/company offered the coverage for a price & the insured buy’s X-amount limit on UM/UIM, then it shouldn\’t matter what the doot\’s insurance company paid before the doot\’s limits were exhausted, if you bought the coverage you should be entitled to it up to the limits you purchased.
Now, if the GA policy clearly gives examples of what it will cover (like the co-ins example on property policies) with a breakdown showing that if the other party has $100,000 CSL & the total BI&PD comes to $120,000 & you only carry $100,000 CSL then you get nothing…. but if the OP has only $50,000 CSL & the total BI&PD is $120,000 then your policy will pay $50,000. Either way, according to the GA scenario, you are out $20,000 & one way your policy covers some of the cost & another way it doesn\’t. I think if I see in GA I would push the $300,000 – $500,000 CSL limits harder & have the insured sign off that they accept a lower limit before I would bind the coverage.
Hal, do not underestimate the trial bar. They know exactly what they are doing. The more money the insured gets the more they get, especially from insureds who go to them the day after the accident but who could get policy limits without the their attorney\’s help. But once they sign, they can kiss 25% to 40% of their money goodbye. Easy pick\’ns.
My claims experience must be lots better than yours.
On the present GA UM cover it looks like if both parties have the same limits underinsured motoriest pays nothing. On the Texas policy, underinsured motorist pays on the bills for the not-at-fault party if liability part on the at-fault party is not enough to pay all the bills.
You could have $20/$40/$15 limits and get hit by someone with $100/$300/$100 limits and if their limits are not enough your $20/$40 limit would pay.
If it\’s done right claims are paid almost as quick as a change making machine.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It appears that two individuals, David & Bill K, completely understand what the coverage is & how it is rated.
What occured with this specific bill is that the GA Trial Lawyers got together and found a politician who did not understand the dynamics of UM & UIM. Further, he did not understand the rating mechanisms associated with \”premiums.\” Even after the GA DOI Commissioner, John Oxendine, advised and explained what the coverage was, how it was rated and how this would change the rates of UM/UIM coverage.
Further, I cannot recall the exact number, but Comm. Oxendine stated that his office has received over 800,000 calls and none of the employees can recall ANY calls by \”confused\” consumers regarding UM/UIM coverage… ain\’t that amazing. It appears that only our legislators, lead by those captains of intellect, aka Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, appear to be confused about the coverage.
More to come… go check out http://www.dontraisemyrates.com
In Texas we can stack UM. If I have $25k in UM and you are at-fault with any coverage amount but not enough to cover all my BI bills my under insured motorist will pay up to its $25k after your coverage maxes out. It applies to PD as well.
Yes the premium is higher, but what the hey….everything\’s bigger in Texas.
It is a whole lot easier to explain, too Your UM will pay when the at-fault party\’s coverage quits if it doesn\’t pay all your bills. Your insurance company subrogates. All is well.
Isn\’t underinsured motorist coverage supposed to kick in & pay for the excess over what the \”at fault\” party\’s insurance did not cover? That\’s what I believe the coverage is for… Then the victim\’s company can file suit against the \”at fault\” party if they wish to recover the paid losses due to their negligence.
If this is not correct, please provide me with some additional insight regarding this part of the UM/UIM coverage.
Thanks!
Senate Bill 276 has moved through the GA Senate and is moving through the GA House with seemingly little opposition.
\”Get all of what you pay for\” makes for a catchy tagline for those pushing the bill; however, it fails to recognize that people have been paying for coverage as the law currently stands (pricing is based on loss experience), not as the attorney\’s would like for it to be.
The premium increase associated with this change is likely to cause quite a few people that currently carry UM to decide to drop the coverage, thus they will be exposed if they happen to get hit by someone that is truly uninsured.
Rather than mandate the \”stacking\” of a persons underinsured motorist coverage on top of an at fault party\’s liability coverage, I think \”stacking\” should be an option that the individual could choose to pay for or choose to reject.
Senate Bill 276 will benefit few and harm many; as such, it needs to be stopped.
In most states, UM/UIM will pay for the difference between the at-fault driver\’s coverage and the amount of applicable UM/UIM. For example, a driver with 50K of BI who causes 100K of injury will be underinsured if the injured party has UM/UIM of 100K. The injured party\’s UM/UIM coverge will pay 50K, the difference between the BI limits of the tortfeasor and his UM/UIM limit. If the injured party has only 50K, he will not have any underinsured mototrist coverge because his UM/UIM limit matches the BI limit of tortfeasor. Under the Georgia proposal, in the latter circumstance, the injured party would have 50k of underinsured benefit, i.e. there would no be a comparison to or deduction of the tortfeasor\’s BI limit. (Hence the specious conclusion by the legislator that he would be \”get what he paid for.\”) In fact rates will increase substantially to cover this previously excluded, and hence not paid for, first dollar UM/UIM coverage.
Hal, that\’s what I thought too! I do find it hard to believe that there are people in leadership with the power to initiate changes for the entire state who have no clue. I think I know how that happened… is it Bill Clinton\’s college friend that did inhale?
Well, I thought it was a mistake when Texas made the UM change. But after something like 15 years of it being the way it is now, I wouldn\’t want to go back. If I have $100/$300/$100 on my UM and the doot that runs into me has the state mandated $20/$40/$15, then my UM becomes the major payor for me and any injured in my car. So my Texas policy pays without subtracting $20k off.
As an agent I like the simplicity of explaining UM without wondering about what coverage the other party has.
I have to say that I\’m not sure what the difference in premium in TX from GA, but I like it the way we have it here in Texas! If the agent/company offered the coverage for a price & the insured buy’s X-amount limit on UM/UIM, then it shouldn\’t matter what the doot\’s insurance company paid before the doot\’s limits were exhausted, if you bought the coverage you should be entitled to it up to the limits you purchased.
Now, if the GA policy clearly gives examples of what it will cover (like the co-ins example on property policies) with a breakdown showing that if the other party has $100,000 CSL & the total BI&PD comes to $120,000 & you only carry $100,000 CSL then you get nothing…. but if the OP has only $50,000 CSL & the total BI&PD is $120,000 then your policy will pay $50,000. Either way, according to the GA scenario, you are out $20,000 & one way your policy covers some of the cost & another way it doesn\’t. I think if I see in GA I would push the $300,000 – $500,000 CSL limits harder & have the insured sign off that they accept a lower limit before I would bind the coverage.
Hal, do not underestimate the trial bar. They know exactly what they are doing. The more money the insured gets the more they get, especially from insureds who go to them the day after the accident but who could get policy limits without the their attorney\’s help. But once they sign, they can kiss 25% to 40% of their money goodbye. Easy pick\’ns.
My claims experience must be lots better than yours.
On the present GA UM cover it looks like if both parties have the same limits underinsured motoriest pays nothing. On the Texas policy, underinsured motorist pays on the bills for the not-at-fault party if liability part on the at-fault party is not enough to pay all the bills.
You could have $20/$40/$15 limits and get hit by someone with $100/$300/$100 limits and if their limits are not enough your $20/$40 limit would pay.
If it\’s done right claims are paid almost as quick as a change making machine.