By Carol

May 28, 2008 6:34 PM | Link to this

When anyone makes the decision to insure only for the minimum, they should know that any liability over and above that minimum paid out by their insurance company to satisfy a claim would then become their personal responsibility. If it means a second mortgage on their home, then so be it. The victim should not have any financial responsibility for someone else's mistake. I am one that could be referred to as "over insured" and will always have that extra cushion "just in case".

By Phil

May 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

The AJC reporter did a terrible job of reporting on the new law. For decades in Georgia, optional uninsured motorist coverage has protected non-negligent drivers/pedestrians who were injured by uninsured motorists or by those motorists who did not have enough insurance to cover one's medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering damages. For example, if the negligent driver has only $25,000 per person in liability coverage, and your damages are worth $50,000, and you have $50,000 in uninsured motorist coverage, under currect Georgia law you can collect--often after a protracted battle, $25,000 from the negligent motorist's policy, and $25,000 from your uninsured motorist coverage. If your damages are more than $50,000, you are screwed. The new law, effective in Jan. 09, simply gives a motorist the option to extend their uninsured motorist coverage. For example, if your damages are worth $75,000, and you and the other driver had the same insurance limits as stated above, you can elect coverage whereby you would collect $25,000 from the negligent driver, and $50,000 from your uninsured motorist coverage. Under current uninsured motorist coverage, or the coverage available pursuant to the new law in Jan. 09, the uninsured motorist or the motorist with minimum $25,000 coverage is not off the hook if damages exceed $25,000.00. The uninsured motorist carrier can sue the poorly insured driver to recover the money they paid to their injured policy holder (called "subrogation"). Moreover, an injured party has the option-if they choose not to accept the other driver's liability limits, to sue a negligent party, and to, hopefully, obtain a Judgment much greater than the driver's liability limits--and try to collect from the other party's assets. (In reality, of course, that would be quite a nightmare). Don't fear for the poor insurance companies that must provide uninsured motorist coverage. They get a premium, of course, for that coverage. You will have to fight your own insurance company to recover benefits just as hard as if it were the other driver's policy. Moreover, your uninsured motorist coverage does not provide coverage for punitive damages that you might get against the other driver.

By Michael

May 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

I thought this was the law. Buy uninsured motorist coverage to cover the fools who carry the mininum or none at all.

As for the "bad" insurance companies, everyone who drives is required to have insurance and there must be an insurer of last resort in Georgia, no matter how bad your driving records.

By fatgrandpa

May 28, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

I have no sympathy for high risk drivers. The statement the the bottom feeders need to drive is incomplete. The bottom feeders need to learn to drive and follow the rules of the road.

By Rick

May 28, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

Throw uninsured drivers in jail for 90 days. DEAL with the problem of uninsured drivers, including illegal aliens. If someone caused an accident, they should be responsible for the damages caused.

By Leigh

May 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

What is needed is higher minimum limits. The minimum limits should be 50/100/50. That is up to the legislatures, not the sub-standard insurance carriers.

By WA Inc

May 27, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

I love the idea that because I did well in school, went to college, graduated, perform well in my industry somehow makes me a bad person. What... do you mean to say because I am a productive member of society that I am somehow a criminal for earning a decent wage and buying a very nice house in a very nice (gated) subdivision and a very nice car to drive through those very nice gates down to my very nice job (Which is not in the insurance industry..but even if it was..should that matter)? I do have a lot of coverage on my insurance. I believe my coverage will satify a driver should I smack his very nice Aston.

You don't see laws requiring the wealthy to go extra steps because, frankly, we do it already. It takes some common sense to climb the social ladder.

By WA Inc

May 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

I think I would rather people have no insurance rather than substandard levels of insurance. Sure, SafeAto is obeying the law by offering only those bare minimums...But they also know the game they are playing quite well. Take an accident the driver caused involved four vehicles on I-75 (this is not that far fetched I am sure you will agree). Personal injury aside, let's say they caused $60,000 in damage. SafeAuto can report with a big greedy smile: Yes, we provided our state required $25,000 and now we are out if it. And thanks to the new law, the innocent insurance companies (who in turn later charge innocent insured drivers) must pick up the balance remaining on each of those other three vehicles.

How is that fair?
Sure, they can sue...but the defense will be the unsafe driver with SafeAuto files for indigency and he just can't afford, nor is he required, to be any more responsible for his actions. I think an uninsured driver is a much better prosecution: This guy is such a irresponsible person that he doesn't even carry insurance.

In the long run, as someone who gets kickbacks on how well my member owned insurance company does each year, I would much rather have that responsible party pay for it all then just a chunk.

And I do blame SafeAuto because they provide the means for someone to be so irresponsible.

By Hank

May 27, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Force SafeAuto out of business? What are you WA inc? Probably A State Farm agent most likely. They fill a void whether you like it or not. As for trying to force folks to buy more insurance because arrogant, egotistical humps choose to drive way over priced cars, that ain't ever gonna fly. If anything, increase the rates of any driver who willingly chooses to drive a car worth more than 25K as they directly cause more liability whenever they are involved in a crash.

By Cap'n Louie

May 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Wait a sec, Joe, how come it is just because a person has the means to buy a car that he should just get over it someone destroys it? The state mandated "minimum" should not allow someone to just walk away with paying $25,000 when they negligently destroyed a $50,000 car. I myself keep $100,000 in insurance. I could save myself a few hundred a year, and go with state minimums, but the responsible thing to do it to cover your mistakes. I do not personally feel that there should be a state minimum. What you do when you set the value that low is to tell anyone who invests in property above that value is that thier investment is worthless. One of our biggest problems now is that too many people fully expect and or demand to be absolved of responsibility. maybe the state minimum should be a multiplied factor of your driver rating. The rating would go from 1 to 5, by tenths. If 1.0= an excellent driving record, then your "minimum" is 1.0 x $50,000. The worse a driving record you have, then that number goes up. The max would be 5. The liability minimum for a driver with a 5.0 would be 5 x $50,000, or $250,000 in coverage.

There would be no more "bottom feeders." The bigger risk you are, the more coverage you would have.