A new proposition in California could see greater competition among auto insurance providers.
Proposition 17, which comes up for a vote on June 8, would allow consumers to take their continuous coverage discount from one insurer to the other, said a report on ABC10 News in San Diego.
But many are unsure whether or not the new proposition would actually save money for Californians, the report said. Opponents say that stopping coverage for 90 days could force consumers to pay a surcharge of more than $1,000, while supporters point out that it would save the average Californian about $250 a year.
But insurance companies are the biggest supporters of the bill, and have shelled out millions to promote its passage.
"When was the last time an insurance company spent millions of dollars to save you money," one consumer watchdog asked the station. "Answer - never."
But those in the state looking for relief from high auto insurance prices may qualify for a $400-a-year plan from the state Department of Insurance. The Los Angeles Times reported that individuals making less than $27,075 a year and families of four living on less than $55,125 qualify for coverage.
Source
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Auto insurance rates may stabilize
Car insurance rates should stabilize in Alberta this year.
The province's Automobile Insurance Rate Board tells the Calgary Herald that's because of a court ruling last year that reinstated a $45-hundred cap on claims related to soft-tissue injuries like whiplash and strains.
The board says that'll be a big factor in stopping rates from soaring.
The final rates this year will be unveiled after the review board meets on June 15th to come up with a final number.
Source
The province's Automobile Insurance Rate Board tells the Calgary Herald that's because of a court ruling last year that reinstated a $45-hundred cap on claims related to soft-tissue injuries like whiplash and strains.
The board says that'll be a big factor in stopping rates from soaring.
The final rates this year will be unveiled after the review board meets on June 15th to come up with a final number.
Source
Monday, June 28, 2010
ICBC announces rate cut for basic auto insurance
The Insurance Corp. of B.C. announced Monday it has applied to the British Columbia Utilities Commission to reduce basic insurance rates by an average of 1.9 per cent, effective Nov. 1, 2010.
"Rate changes are mainly driven by claims costs, and fewer crashes help us keep our rates low and stable," said ICBC's President and CEO, Jon Schubert in a media release. "Our customers are the ones to primarily thank for this reduction -- it's their smart driving that has helped us control our claims costs and apply for this rate reduction."
The number of claims filed across the province has been declining in the last three years: 992,000 claims were reported in 2007, as compared to 964,000 in 2008, and 946,000 in 2009, said spokesman Adam Grossman.
ICBC has 3.1 million drivers registered in B.C.
Last year, the insurance provider received $3.7 billion from premiums and a net income of $563 million, said Grossman. During the first quarter of 2010, it has made $155 million. If the 1.9 per cent reduction is approved, ICBC would lose $39 million in premiums. ICBC enacted a 3.3 per cent increase in insurance rates in 2007.
Source
"Rate changes are mainly driven by claims costs, and fewer crashes help us keep our rates low and stable," said ICBC's President and CEO, Jon Schubert in a media release. "Our customers are the ones to primarily thank for this reduction -- it's their smart driving that has helped us control our claims costs and apply for this rate reduction."
The number of claims filed across the province has been declining in the last three years: 992,000 claims were reported in 2007, as compared to 964,000 in 2008, and 946,000 in 2009, said spokesman Adam Grossman.
ICBC has 3.1 million drivers registered in B.C.
Last year, the insurance provider received $3.7 billion from premiums and a net income of $563 million, said Grossman. During the first quarter of 2010, it has made $155 million. If the 1.9 per cent reduction is approved, ICBC would lose $39 million in premiums. ICBC enacted a 3.3 per cent increase in insurance rates in 2007.
Source
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Wisconsin motorists are now required to carry evidence of auto insurance
Beginning this week, the state of Wisconsin will not only require vehicle owners and drivers to have a valid car insurance policy, but they must also be able to prove it. Any motorist operating an automobile must have active coverage and keep identification cards in the vehicle at all times.
Effective June 1, 2010 motorists are required to obtain a motor vehicle liability policy with minimum limits of $50,000 for bodily injury to one person, $100,000 per accident and $15,000 for property damage. In addition, drivers must be able to prove that the vehicle is insured if pulled over for a traffic violation or following a traffic accident.
Motorists who fail to provide proof of car insurance can receive a fine of $10 which may be waived if evidence of coverage is provided to law enforcement at a later date; not having a valid policy can result in a fine of $500.
Currently, New Hampshire is the lone state which does not require automobile coverage and the state of Virginia allows motorists to drive uninsured by paying a $500 fee per year; although residents in these states are allowed to operate a motor vehicle while uninsured it is not recommended. This can leave drivers vulnerable to financial hardships and lawsuits following a traffic accident.
Source
Effective June 1, 2010 motorists are required to obtain a motor vehicle liability policy with minimum limits of $50,000 for bodily injury to one person, $100,000 per accident and $15,000 for property damage. In addition, drivers must be able to prove that the vehicle is insured if pulled over for a traffic violation or following a traffic accident.
Motorists who fail to provide proof of car insurance can receive a fine of $10 which may be waived if evidence of coverage is provided to law enforcement at a later date; not having a valid policy can result in a fine of $500.
Currently, New Hampshire is the lone state which does not require automobile coverage and the state of Virginia allows motorists to drive uninsured by paying a $500 fee per year; although residents in these states are allowed to operate a motor vehicle while uninsured it is not recommended. This can leave drivers vulnerable to financial hardships and lawsuits following a traffic accident.
Source
Monday, March 15, 2010
Steady Growth of Online Auto Insurance Shoppers in Missouri
Websites such as OnlineAutoInsurance.com have seen a steady growth of Missouri residents shopping for auto insurance online in addition to accessing information which can help drivers understand coverage and options to become properly insured.
According to OnlineAutoInsurance.com, as the year has progressed, they have had a growing number of consumers visiting their website from Missouri. The Internet provides a very convenient and easy shopping environment where motorist can easily view and compare the rates of Missouri auto insurance companies from the comfort of their own home and without having to pick up the phone; this may not only save time, but money as well.
Comparison shopping is a vital part of finding the right coverage at the best possible price; shopping online gives consumers the upper hand because it allows them to obtain quotes from multiple companies, some of which that may have been overlooked if shopping in another manner. In addition to helping drivers find the lowest rate possible from a quality companies, the Internet also provides valuable information to help Missourians understand the state’s coverage requirements, coverage definitions and answers to frequently asked question.
By visiting the state of Missouri Department of Insurance website, residents can gather valuable information to help them along as they shop to ensure that they are properly covered and that they fully understand their needs and policies. The state website provides residents with a very useful guide titled “Educational Guide to Automobile Insurance” which can be a very helpful source when looking for to obtain coverage.
Source
According to OnlineAutoInsurance.com, as the year has progressed, they have had a growing number of consumers visiting their website from Missouri. The Internet provides a very convenient and easy shopping environment where motorist can easily view and compare the rates of Missouri auto insurance companies from the comfort of their own home and without having to pick up the phone; this may not only save time, but money as well.
Comparison shopping is a vital part of finding the right coverage at the best possible price; shopping online gives consumers the upper hand because it allows them to obtain quotes from multiple companies, some of which that may have been overlooked if shopping in another manner. In addition to helping drivers find the lowest rate possible from a quality companies, the Internet also provides valuable information to help Missourians understand the state’s coverage requirements, coverage definitions and answers to frequently asked question.
By visiting the state of Missouri Department of Insurance website, residents can gather valuable information to help them along as they shop to ensure that they are properly covered and that they fully understand their needs and policies. The state website provides residents with a very useful guide titled “Educational Guide to Automobile Insurance” which can be a very helpful source when looking for to obtain coverage.
Source
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Deregulation Made Massachusetts Auto Insurance Market Worse
The deregulation of the Massachusetts auto insurance market has driven up prices, boosted insurer profits, reduced consumer protections and generally created confusion in the marketplace, according to a new report by the state's attorney general.
The report, which comes roughly two years after the creation of managed competition, provides an accounting of how the market is operating, and includes a number of recommendations to improve consumers' interests.
“When the Division of Insurance introduced the new deregulated auto insurance system nearly two years ago, they contended that this system would result in better rates for consumers,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley in a statement. “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve."
The report notes that most consumers haven’t shopped around for insurance -- and therefore, not driving rates down -- while are now increasing. Coakley's office said it is particularly concerned companies are now rating customers on several new factors more closely linked to socio-economic status, rather than to consumers’ driving records.
Among the observations included in the reports:
Many consumers whose rates decreased paid more than they should have after the market was deregulated. Had the regulatory rate-setting process occurred in 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions much greater than those seen under deregulation.
Once ‘managed competition’ began, insurers instantly began seeking higher profit. In 2008, the Division of Insurance accepted target returns in the insurer rate filings that were over 150 percent of the 2007 regulated value for some insurers..
There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available. The website provided by the Division of Insurance does not solve these problems.
Some consumers have not been offered all discounts to which they are entitled, have had difficulty obtaining quotes from agents, and have received different quotes from different agents for the same insurers.
Most Massachusetts consumers purchase insurance through an independent agent, yet most agents typically cannot or do not provide price quotes for more than a couple of carriers.
The reports recommends several moves to help improve the auto insurance market for consumers. These included improved rate proposals, the creation of an insurance Web site to provide side-by-side quotes for all insurers, elimination of penalties for leaving an insurance company early, prohibition of the collection of personal information not needed for rating and the introduction of legislation to ban the use of credit score in insurance ratemaking.
Source
The report, which comes roughly two years after the creation of managed competition, provides an accounting of how the market is operating, and includes a number of recommendations to improve consumers' interests.
“When the Division of Insurance introduced the new deregulated auto insurance system nearly two years ago, they contended that this system would result in better rates for consumers,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley in a statement. “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve."
The report notes that most consumers haven’t shopped around for insurance -- and therefore, not driving rates down -- while are now increasing. Coakley's office said it is particularly concerned companies are now rating customers on several new factors more closely linked to socio-economic status, rather than to consumers’ driving records.
Among the observations included in the reports:
Many consumers whose rates decreased paid more than they should have after the market was deregulated. Had the regulatory rate-setting process occurred in 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions much greater than those seen under deregulation.
Once ‘managed competition’ began, insurers instantly began seeking higher profit. In 2008, the Division of Insurance accepted target returns in the insurer rate filings that were over 150 percent of the 2007 regulated value for some insurers..
There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available. The website provided by the Division of Insurance does not solve these problems.
Some consumers have not been offered all discounts to which they are entitled, have had difficulty obtaining quotes from agents, and have received different quotes from different agents for the same insurers.
Most Massachusetts consumers purchase insurance through an independent agent, yet most agents typically cannot or do not provide price quotes for more than a couple of carriers.
The reports recommends several moves to help improve the auto insurance market for consumers. These included improved rate proposals, the creation of an insurance Web site to provide side-by-side quotes for all insurers, elimination of penalties for leaving an insurance company early, prohibition of the collection of personal information not needed for rating and the introduction of legislation to ban the use of credit score in insurance ratemaking.
Source
Monday, February 15, 2010
Mass. AG, Insurers Spar Over State’s Auto Insurance System
Insurers challenged the results of a report from the Massachusetts Attorney General that questions the state’s relatively new auto insurance “managed competition” system.
Under the current system, Massachusetts insurers are allowed to file proposed rates and the Division of Insurance has a certain amount of time to review the filings. Companies can use the rates if they are not disapproved.
Prior to adoption of the current system in April 2008, the state set rates that would be used by all auto insurers, the only state in the country to determine auto rates in this manner.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, though, released a report this month contending that consumers are not benefiting as much as they should under the system.
In a statement, Ms. Coakley said, “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve.”
Ms. Coakley said the report notes that most consumers have not shopped around for insurance, and therefore are not driving rates down. She stated that rates are now actually increasing.
The report says that if the old system had continued through 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions “much greater than those seen under deregulation.” It slams insurers for seeking higher profits since the new system was implemented, and says the system has led to “less transparency in the rate-setting process.”
It also states, “Because insurers are no longer required to offer insurance to consumers they consider undesirable, many good drivers, particularly in urban areas, may be non-renewed or denied coverage.”
However, a survey of 4,500 drivers found that the number of drivers in the residual market is declining, “meaning that more drivers are able to find acceptable insurance premium and service options among competing companies in the marketplace.”
The survey was conducted by the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR) in April 2009—with minorities and urban drivers “over-sampled to ensure that their experiences were accurately reflected”—and one-on-one interviews with over 50 insurance agents and executives.
The survey also found that average premiums per vehicle dropped 8.2 percent during the first year under managed competition, compared to a 5.2 percent decline the previous year under the former system.
Paul Tetrault, state affairs manager for the Northeast for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, criticized the attorney general’s findings, saying, “The attorney general opposed the transition to managed competition at every opportunity. Now that it has been remarkably successful for more than a year and a half, bringing not market disruption as critics predicted but rather lower prices for good drivers and more choices in the marketplace, it is incredible that the attorney general would continue to undermine that success.”
Changing the system now, he added, would return Massachusetts to a system where rates would be “highly politicized.”
Edmund Kelly, chairman, president and CEO of Liberty Mutual Group, also defended the results of the new system.
In a statement he said, “To better meet increased consumer demand under ‘managed competition,’ we lowered our prices, added new products and improved service across the state. As a result we have thousands of new customers, and over 10 percent growth since managed competition began last year. That tells us that competition is working.”
He added that Liberty Mutual is adding 400 new jobs in the state as a sign of its commitment to the new system.
The OCABR survey and attorney general report found common ground in calling for better outreach and education.
The attorney general report said, “There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available.”
The OCABR survey noted, “Not all consumers availed themselves of the new system in the first year. Some believed shopping around would be time-consuming, they were skeptical that they would save money, they found it difficult to compare insurance policies from different companies, and they believed they could not change insurance carriers before a policy had expired.”
Source
Under the current system, Massachusetts insurers are allowed to file proposed rates and the Division of Insurance has a certain amount of time to review the filings. Companies can use the rates if they are not disapproved.
Prior to adoption of the current system in April 2008, the state set rates that would be used by all auto insurers, the only state in the country to determine auto rates in this manner.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, though, released a report this month contending that consumers are not benefiting as much as they should under the system.
In a statement, Ms. Coakley said, “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve.”
Ms. Coakley said the report notes that most consumers have not shopped around for insurance, and therefore are not driving rates down. She stated that rates are now actually increasing.
The report says that if the old system had continued through 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions “much greater than those seen under deregulation.” It slams insurers for seeking higher profits since the new system was implemented, and says the system has led to “less transparency in the rate-setting process.”
It also states, “Because insurers are no longer required to offer insurance to consumers they consider undesirable, many good drivers, particularly in urban areas, may be non-renewed or denied coverage.”
However, a survey of 4,500 drivers found that the number of drivers in the residual market is declining, “meaning that more drivers are able to find acceptable insurance premium and service options among competing companies in the marketplace.”
The survey was conducted by the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR) in April 2009—with minorities and urban drivers “over-sampled to ensure that their experiences were accurately reflected”—and one-on-one interviews with over 50 insurance agents and executives.
The survey also found that average premiums per vehicle dropped 8.2 percent during the first year under managed competition, compared to a 5.2 percent decline the previous year under the former system.
Paul Tetrault, state affairs manager for the Northeast for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, criticized the attorney general’s findings, saying, “The attorney general opposed the transition to managed competition at every opportunity. Now that it has been remarkably successful for more than a year and a half, bringing not market disruption as critics predicted but rather lower prices for good drivers and more choices in the marketplace, it is incredible that the attorney general would continue to undermine that success.”
Changing the system now, he added, would return Massachusetts to a system where rates would be “highly politicized.”
Edmund Kelly, chairman, president and CEO of Liberty Mutual Group, also defended the results of the new system.
In a statement he said, “To better meet increased consumer demand under ‘managed competition,’ we lowered our prices, added new products and improved service across the state. As a result we have thousands of new customers, and over 10 percent growth since managed competition began last year. That tells us that competition is working.”
He added that Liberty Mutual is adding 400 new jobs in the state as a sign of its commitment to the new system.
The OCABR survey and attorney general report found common ground in calling for better outreach and education.
The attorney general report said, “There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available.”
The OCABR survey noted, “Not all consumers availed themselves of the new system in the first year. Some believed shopping around would be time-consuming, they were skeptical that they would save money, they found it difficult to compare insurance policies from different companies, and they believed they could not change insurance carriers before a policy had expired.”
Source
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Michigan Auto Insurance Bills Stall As Senate Adjourns Without Acting
The Michigan Senate adjourned before Christmas without taking action on a property/casualty insurance bill package already passed by the House of Representatives.
The package would, among other things, give the insurance commissioner more authority over rates and strip insurers of their ability to use occupation, education level or credit scores in underwriting or pricing.
The legislation mirrors recommendations contained in a report by the state’s consumer advocate, Melvin "Butch" Hollowell, in February. Many Democrats and urban lawmakers are supporting it, while many Republicans and the insurance are opposing it.
Insurers had warned that if the measure passed, auto insurers would leave the state, exacerbating insurance problems and unemployment. Insurers employ more than 50,000 people in the state.
“We are extraordinarily pleased that the Michigan Senate did not take up these bills before adjournment. This will give us time to educate legislators on the importance of underwriting tools in not only assessing risk but keeping rates low,” said Erin Collins, Mid-Atlantic state affairs manager for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC).
The bill package was introduced earlier this month and was quickly approved by the House Insurance Committee, and then the full House.
Supporters believe that the legislation will make insurance pricing fairer and help control prices, which they contend have been going up especially for urban motorists despite fewer miles being driven and fewer motor vehicle deaths.
"This is a great day in the state of Michigan," said Rep. Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit, after the House passed the bills. "This chamber is ... protecting the pocketbooks of our citizens."
"Detroit residents are sick and tired of the insurance companies jacking up their rates because of factors like credit history, occupation or education level -– these are non-issues when it comes to one's ability to drive," said Rep. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit. "Our plan brings some much-needed relief for our residents and reforms that will ensure that insurance companies play by the rules."
The package includes bills that would require the insurance commissioner’s approval before any new rates could go into effect and that would prohibit rate increases on good drivers who are not at fault in accidents.
Another bill would create a low-cost pilot program for low-income residents with good driving records.
Still another would restrict the hiring of former insurance commissioners by the insurance industry.
The package has been opposed by the Michigan Insurance Coalition, which represents insurers. They say the bills would cost consumers more, create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and drive insurance companies and their jobs to other states.
The industry contends that the bills fail to address one of the major causes of rising insurance costs in Michigan: the state’s unique mandate of unlimited lifetime medical benefits to people injured in car accidents.
Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the industry’s Insurance Information Institute and an economist, told lawmakers that no other state in the country provides unlimited no-fault benefits because to do so is expensive.
“So what is driving Michigan’s auto insurance costs up in both absolute and relative terms? While the cost drivers influencing the price of auto insurance in Michigan are similar to those in other states in most respects, there is one glaring exception—its unlimited threshold for no-fault auto insurance claims,” Hartwig testified before the Michigan House Insurance committee.
Hartwig noted that the average no-fault auto insurance claim in Michigan rose 250 percent, to $31,883 in 2007 from $9,103 in 1998, because the “system operates with virtually no checks or balances.” Unlike other states, Michigan has no medical fee schedules, no utilization controls or treatment protocols, and no state insurance fraud bureau to prosecute abuse in the no-fault system.
The average auto insurance policyholder in Michigan spent $928 in 2007, compared with $795 for the typical U.S. driver in that same year, making Michigan’s rates the eleventh highest in the nation.
Hartwig said that efforts to either restrict or ban certain underwriting tools, such as credit-based insurance scores, will not lower auto insurance premiums. Likewise, he said, efforts to create low cost policies without also reducing the benefits provided are doomed to failure. Such programs implicitly require subsidies, he stated.
Source
The package would, among other things, give the insurance commissioner more authority over rates and strip insurers of their ability to use occupation, education level or credit scores in underwriting or pricing.
The legislation mirrors recommendations contained in a report by the state’s consumer advocate, Melvin "Butch" Hollowell, in February. Many Democrats and urban lawmakers are supporting it, while many Republicans and the insurance are opposing it.
Insurers had warned that if the measure passed, auto insurers would leave the state, exacerbating insurance problems and unemployment. Insurers employ more than 50,000 people in the state.
“We are extraordinarily pleased that the Michigan Senate did not take up these bills before adjournment. This will give us time to educate legislators on the importance of underwriting tools in not only assessing risk but keeping rates low,” said Erin Collins, Mid-Atlantic state affairs manager for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC).
The bill package was introduced earlier this month and was quickly approved by the House Insurance Committee, and then the full House.
Supporters believe that the legislation will make insurance pricing fairer and help control prices, which they contend have been going up especially for urban motorists despite fewer miles being driven and fewer motor vehicle deaths.
"This is a great day in the state of Michigan," said Rep. Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit, after the House passed the bills. "This chamber is ... protecting the pocketbooks of our citizens."
"Detroit residents are sick and tired of the insurance companies jacking up their rates because of factors like credit history, occupation or education level -– these are non-issues when it comes to one's ability to drive," said Rep. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit. "Our plan brings some much-needed relief for our residents and reforms that will ensure that insurance companies play by the rules."
The package includes bills that would require the insurance commissioner’s approval before any new rates could go into effect and that would prohibit rate increases on good drivers who are not at fault in accidents.
Another bill would create a low-cost pilot program for low-income residents with good driving records.
Still another would restrict the hiring of former insurance commissioners by the insurance industry.
The package has been opposed by the Michigan Insurance Coalition, which represents insurers. They say the bills would cost consumers more, create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and drive insurance companies and their jobs to other states.
The industry contends that the bills fail to address one of the major causes of rising insurance costs in Michigan: the state’s unique mandate of unlimited lifetime medical benefits to people injured in car accidents.
Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the industry’s Insurance Information Institute and an economist, told lawmakers that no other state in the country provides unlimited no-fault benefits because to do so is expensive.
“So what is driving Michigan’s auto insurance costs up in both absolute and relative terms? While the cost drivers influencing the price of auto insurance in Michigan are similar to those in other states in most respects, there is one glaring exception—its unlimited threshold for no-fault auto insurance claims,” Hartwig testified before the Michigan House Insurance committee.
Hartwig noted that the average no-fault auto insurance claim in Michigan rose 250 percent, to $31,883 in 2007 from $9,103 in 1998, because the “system operates with virtually no checks or balances.” Unlike other states, Michigan has no medical fee schedules, no utilization controls or treatment protocols, and no state insurance fraud bureau to prosecute abuse in the no-fault system.
The average auto insurance policyholder in Michigan spent $928 in 2007, compared with $795 for the typical U.S. driver in that same year, making Michigan’s rates the eleventh highest in the nation.
Hartwig said that efforts to either restrict or ban certain underwriting tools, such as credit-based insurance scores, will not lower auto insurance premiums. Likewise, he said, efforts to create low cost policies without also reducing the benefits provided are doomed to failure. Such programs implicitly require subsidies, he stated.
Source
Friday, January 15, 2010
Phila. auto-theft law gets mixed reviews
Legislation that would help auto-theft victims in Philadelphia avoid the additional burden of having to pay for their cars being towed and impounded after their vehicles are recovered by police is drawing mixed reviews.
The measure by City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke would require police to call vehicle owners and give them an hour to recover their vehicles.
The current policy calls for private tow trucks to remove stolen vehicles located by police. Police stay with the vehicle for 30 minutes while the owner is contacted, officials said. If the owners cannot be reached in 30 minutes, the vehicle is towed, requiring owners to pay a $150 towing charge and a $25-a-day storage fee.
"If you have full [auto insurance] coverage with all the bells and whistles, the insurance company will reimburse you for the cost," Clarke said. "The reality is most people have limited coverage that doesn't cover that."
This year through Sunday, there were 5,636 vehicles stolen in Philadelphia and 4,829 recovered, according to police. Officials said auto thefts were down 24 percent this year.
Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said he opposed the measure because of the amount of time it would require of police officers.
"When you look at 4,800 cars being recovered, and you think about the length of time that we're asking police officers to be out of service waiting for someone to come from who-knows-where, that's a lot of lost man hours," Ramsey said.
Ramsey said the current 30-minute wait gives officers time to complete paperwork and wait for a tow truck to come.
"To extend that time beyond that would probably not be in the interest of public safety," he said.
Clarke said, "We're simply saying police should notify the owners and in the course of their patrols come back and see if the vehicle is still there and then call the tow operator. I don't want to have a police officer taken off the street for any amount of time."
The legislation would also reduce the towing fee to $105, Clarke said. He said he introduced a bill about three years ago that cut the city's portion of the towing fee to $15 from about $60.
The councilman said he thought the total fee would be reduced by $45, but it was not.
"Essentially, the tow operators have been getting a windfall. They now get an additional $45. So the second part of my bill would reduce that," Clarke said.
A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for 2 p.m. today in City Council.
"We should give proper notification, which we do, but we should give adequate time for that individual to reclaim their vehicle," Clarke said.
City Consumer Affairs Director Lance Haver said he supported the bill as a way to help consumers, whom he said are being "victimized twice. Once by the criminal who stole their car, and a second time by the insurance industry that is not covering the cost."
Haver said a change in state insurance regulations could eliminate the problem.
"If the state insurance commissioner insisted that every insurance company cover the cost of towing and storage of any car that is stolen, then the city wouldn't be in the awkward position of trying to collect the actual cost," Haver said.
"Councilman Clarke is doing consumers a huge favor by giving them an opportunity to recover the car and keeping the fee as low as possible," Haver said
Source
The measure by City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke would require police to call vehicle owners and give them an hour to recover their vehicles.
The current policy calls for private tow trucks to remove stolen vehicles located by police. Police stay with the vehicle for 30 minutes while the owner is contacted, officials said. If the owners cannot be reached in 30 minutes, the vehicle is towed, requiring owners to pay a $150 towing charge and a $25-a-day storage fee.
"If you have full [auto insurance] coverage with all the bells and whistles, the insurance company will reimburse you for the cost," Clarke said. "The reality is most people have limited coverage that doesn't cover that."
This year through Sunday, there were 5,636 vehicles stolen in Philadelphia and 4,829 recovered, according to police. Officials said auto thefts were down 24 percent this year.
Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said he opposed the measure because of the amount of time it would require of police officers.
"When you look at 4,800 cars being recovered, and you think about the length of time that we're asking police officers to be out of service waiting for someone to come from who-knows-where, that's a lot of lost man hours," Ramsey said.
Ramsey said the current 30-minute wait gives officers time to complete paperwork and wait for a tow truck to come.
"To extend that time beyond that would probably not be in the interest of public safety," he said.
Clarke said, "We're simply saying police should notify the owners and in the course of their patrols come back and see if the vehicle is still there and then call the tow operator. I don't want to have a police officer taken off the street for any amount of time."
The legislation would also reduce the towing fee to $105, Clarke said. He said he introduced a bill about three years ago that cut the city's portion of the towing fee to $15 from about $60.
The councilman said he thought the total fee would be reduced by $45, but it was not.
"Essentially, the tow operators have been getting a windfall. They now get an additional $45. So the second part of my bill would reduce that," Clarke said.
A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for 2 p.m. today in City Council.
"We should give proper notification, which we do, but we should give adequate time for that individual to reclaim their vehicle," Clarke said.
City Consumer Affairs Director Lance Haver said he supported the bill as a way to help consumers, whom he said are being "victimized twice. Once by the criminal who stole their car, and a second time by the insurance industry that is not covering the cost."
Haver said a change in state insurance regulations could eliminate the problem.
"If the state insurance commissioner insisted that every insurance company cover the cost of towing and storage of any car that is stolen, then the city wouldn't be in the awkward position of trying to collect the actual cost," Haver said.
"Councilman Clarke is doing consumers a huge favor by giving them an opportunity to recover the car and keeping the fee as low as possible," Haver said
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)