And you thought NJ auto was messed up before . . .
Jeff4BKWK
If not, I'd like to see some of your comments on the following changes coming
from our new law entitled the "Auto Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998"
1. Companies are required to offer a "Basic Policy" consisting of:
a. Optional Bodily Injury Liability Coverage of $10,000 (I did type
OPTIONAL)
b. $5,000 Property Damage Liability (no higher options available)
c. $15,000 PIP Medical Expense Benefit Limit ($250,000 for "Catastrophic")
d. NO Physical Damage Coverage offered (although this is up to the
company, they may offer the option if they want, but no company I've seen
offers it)
e. No additional PIP Options (i.e. income continuation, etc.)
f. No Uninsured / Underinsured motorist coverage.
2. Named Driver Exclusions must be offered excluding physical damage coverage
if an excluded driver operates the vehicle - (Along with all the E&O exposure
for agents not to mention lessors and finance companies) Does not impact BI or
PD.
3. Companies must offer PIP at Optional lower limits (i.e. $15,000 up to the
maximum $250,000)
4. Allows for Managed care PIP at a reduced premium (i.e. network of doctors
for PIP injuries / treatment)
5. Mandates treatment "care paths" to avoid unnecessary treatments.
6. Excludes coverage for certain diagnostic tests.
7. Institutes a full time arbitration panel for care disputes
8. Certain PIP treatments now require Pre-Certification.
9. Mandates a 15% rate reduction, HOWEVER, this reduction is based on a
"typical" policy and is a formula for reduction by coverage. When applied to
many companies' books, it results in less than 15% for many drivers.
One other item of note about this reduction, according to a local newspaper
article, a group of 15 insurance companies has sued the DOI over a requirment
sent out approximately 2 weeks before this all goes into effect (3/22/1999)
stating that there must be at least a reduction of 13% for EVERY policy, even
though the DOI approved the rate reduction formulas which result in lower
reductions for some policies.
Most companies are now using a "Standard Auto Policy" as opposed to the new ISO
PAP.
There is also some debate over whether the UM/UIM coverage on the "Standard"
policy will kick in, if the at-fault party carries a "Basic" policy. The
argument is that the driver with the "Basic" policy has insurance and is
therefore not Uninsured. I can't see too much weight in that argument due to
UIM, but who knows.
The "Basic" policy will adapt to minimum coverage requirments of other States,
so we'll really be a target for residency fraud . . . Think about if I live in
another State, but get my car registered and insured in NJ on a "Basic" policy,
as long as I'm driving in my real State, I have minimum required limits (at a
much reduced premium).
Lastly, our esteemed Governor has been on the radio telling everyone to call
their agent/company and get their 15% reduction (even though it may not be 15%)
right after 3/22/1999, regardless of when renewal is. This means cancel and
re-write for some companies, and endorsements for others . . . but either way
it means a WHOLE LOT of time and effort for my staff.
Pray for me . . .
CoverMe
Yeah. Snow, last I heard. (Kev, I spent the weekend at an outdoor jazz
fest.)
: If not, I'd like to see some of your comments on the following changes
coming
: from our new law entitled the "Auto Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998"
Whenever you see the words "cost reduction" in a legislative title, you
can be fairly certiain of two things: 1) It's a nakedly political
contrivance. 2) It will not, under any circumstances, reduce the cost of
anything.
<snipped the details of the act>
This sounds like a plaintiff's attorney's dream. As silly as most of it
appears to be on paper, I suspect that the net effects will not be as
severe as you might fear. They're just fiddling while Rome burns. Also,
if it's anything like Florida, carriers may be required to offer certain
coverages, but it doesn't mean that they'll ever actually write them. Find
a preferred Florida carrier that will write a PIP deductible, for instance.
: Lastly, our esteemed Governor has been on the radio telling everyone to
call
: their agent/company and get their 15% reduction (even though it may not
be 15%)
: right after 3/22/1999, regardless of when renewal is. This means cancel
and
: re-write for some companies, and endorsements for others . . . but either
way
: it means a WHOLE LOT of time and effort for my staff.
Oh, boy. Sorry, Kev, I take back the comments about the snow. What the
devil is Whitman thinking? And I actually liked her . . .
Good luck, Kev. I wish you and your staff a lot of luck. It certainly
will be no fun, but as everything else does in our business, this too shall
pass. Get rid of that snow, and I'll be glad to come up and help you fill
out apps. . .
Trey
:
: Pray for me . . .
:
WPLC PandC
>
Jeff,
April Fools day is still a little over two weeks away. If it wasn't fact, I
would say that you were a little early with this post.
You Jersey folk have had fun with Personal Auto for years. This takes the
cake. Maybe you will want to spearhead a drive to rename New Jersey from the
"Garden" State to the "Gosh Darn" State.
Out thoughts will be with you on 3/22.
Steve West-Rosenthal
(A New York Agent- A state when we have NO insurance problems)
Chris Browne
Jeff4BKWK wrote in message <19990315075533...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>Any of you heard what we're going through here in NJ?
>
coming
>from our new law entitled the "Auto Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998"
>
call
>their agent/company and get their 15% reduction (even though it may not be
15%)
>right after 3/22/1999, regardless of when renewal is. This means cancel
and
>re-write for some companies, and endorsements for others . . . but either
way
>it means a WHOLE LOT of time and effort for my staff.
>
CoverMe
: (A New York Agent- A state when we have NO insurance problems)
Yep. They found the solution, all right. They take away your car. Oh,
yeah, and all insurance agents are required to have hyphenated last names.
:)
trey
Kevin Felix
CoverMe wrote
> Good luck, Kev. I wish you and your staff a lot of luck. It certainly
>will be no fun, but as everything else does in our business, this too shall
>pass. Get rid of that snow, and I'll be glad to come up and help you fill
>out apps. . .
Uhhhh............Trey?...............I'm over here...in Indiana. I think
the guy over there in Joisey is Jeff.
And yes, by the way, we just about HAVE gotten rid of that snow. And, gee,
guy, it sure smells better than that stuff YOU been shovelin'!! :D
Kev
Kevin Felix
Jeff4BKWK <jeff...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:19990315075533...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
If you call it "insurance" can you be indicted for fraud? To think you can
buy a policy without Bodily Injury liability and go put somebody in the
hospital with no prayer of ever paying for their injuries.
I can't imagine the H-E-[double toothpicks] this is going to put you guys
through, with the governor of the state even saying to go shop your
discount. In my opinion, that's sort of like telling everybody "...the
depression starts next week so go get your money out of the bank today."
Do the governors of NJ and Mass have a wager going to see who can run the
most insurers out of their respective state?
Jeff4BKWK
>One other item of note about this reduction,
>according to a local newspaper article, a
>group of 15 insurance companies has sued
>the DOI over a requirment sent out
>approximately 2 weeks before this all goes
>into effect (3/22/1999) stating that there must
>be at least a reduction of 13% for EVERY
>policy, even though the DOI approved the
>rate reduction formulas which result in lower
>reductions for some policies.
The DOI did not approve the rate reduction formulas, but rather they were
handed down directly from the legislature in the actual law.
The law, incidentally, says nothing about a 13% reduction (or even about a 15%
average reduction). Seems someone looked at the law and mentioned that this
formula SHOULD result in about a 15% reduction for the average NJ driver, the
media and political types then (naturally) took it as fact that there was a 15%
reduction in premium coming down the pike. (can you say election).
Makes you wonder if anyone up there is actually reading these laws.
Today (3/18) is the day the State supreme court is deciding whether the 13%
minimum reduction order is legal.
Karl S. Blechman
KSB
CoverMe
Ummm, huh? I though Joisey was in southern Indiana. And aren't you and
Jeff interchangeable? I thought I saw that on an X-Files episode. . .
Hey, look at all these pretty colors. I'm getting a little dizzy now.
I think I'll go lie down.
Trey <== authoring further proof of his flakiness
Flaky or not, I feel for you, Jeff. Good luck, man.
The Biscuit
WPLC PandC wrote:
> >Any of you heard what we're going through here in NJ?
> >
>
> Jeff,
>
> April Fools day is still a little over two weeks away. If it wasn't fact, I
> would say that you were a little early with this post.
>
> You Jersey folk have had fun with Personal Auto for years. This takes the
> cake. Maybe you will want to spearhead a drive to rename New Jersey from the
> "Garden" State to the "Gosh Darn" State.
>
> Out thoughts will be with you on 3/22.
>
The Biscuit
mandatory liability coverage in the state. So... tortfeasors who are basic
policyholders generate UIM claims. The quesyion is and will be not if a policy is
in force, but rather what type. This is quite a quagmire as among other issues the
state has hepd on the rate decrease yet implemented the cost reduvtions. I know of
no carrier including my own that has been able to find anything near 15% savings
from this act regardless of how it is calculated.
Where is Christie...this reform may get her to the Senate but thats about all. And
the NJDOBI will quietly admit this.
Jeff4BKWK wrote:
> Any of you heard what we're going through here in NJ?
>
> One other item of note about this reduction, according to a local newspaper
> article, a group of 15 insurance companies has sued the DOI over a requirment
> sent out approximately 2 weeks before this all goes into effect (3/22/1999)
> stating that there must be at least a reduction of 13% for EVERY policy, even
> though the DOI approved the rate reduction formulas which result in lower
> reductions for some policies.
>
> Most companies are now using a "Standard Auto Policy" as opposed to the new ISO
> PAP.
>
> There is also some debate over whether the UM/UIM coverage on the "Standard"
> policy will kick in, if the at-fault party carries a "Basic" policy. The
> argument is that the driver with the "Basic" policy has insurance and is
> therefore not Uninsured. I can't see too much weight in that argument due to
> UIM, but who knows.
>
> The "Basic" policy will adapt to minimum coverage requirments of other States,
> so we'll really be a target for residency fraud . . . Think about if I live in
> another State, but get my car registered and insured in NJ on a "Basic" policy,
> as long as I'm driving in my real State, I have minimum required limits (at a
> much reduced premium).
>
> Lastly, our esteemed Governor has been on the radio telling everyone to call
> their agent/company and get their 15% reduction (even though it may not be 15%)
> right after 3/22/1999, regardless of when renewal is. This means cancel and
> re-write for some companies, and endorsements for others . . . but either way
> it means a WHOLE LOT of time and effort for my staff.
>
The Biscuit
WPLC PandC wrote:
> >Any of you heard what we're going through here in NJ?
> >
>