OCR Text |
Show Blamein| plan;it has a lot of merit, problems, too seven states, this group ignited controversy within the insurance industry by recommending the removal of blame-fixing from the insurance laws entirely. In contrast to the present system, the AIA plan basically would eliminate payment to accident victims for pain and suffering and would prohibit liability suits between drivers. But your own insurance company would reimburse you for documented medical expenses and other costs of any amount and for income loss up to $750 a month over any length of time. (Additional income protection would be available for an extra premium as well.) In lieu of payment for pain and suffering, you would be granted additional compensation equal to half of your medical expenses if you were permanently injured or disfigured by the accident. Again, supplementary insurance would be available to pay larger amounts. What's more, says the AIA, inSurance companies would save so much by being able to scrap the whole inefficient fault-finding apparatus—from investigators to law- yers to expert witnesses—that they could reduce your premiums up to 45 percent. This seems optimistic, although there is no doubt that savings would be significant. Here again, however, the policyholder is thrown on his own resources in trying to negotiate a settlement with his insurance company. He is denied recourse to the courts and his bargaining power is considerably diminished. Still, the AIA plan could turn out to be a very good deal for the motorist, providing the policy rates were low enough. If the policy rates were too high (no rate projections have been announced), the entire AIA package might be nobetter than the current system where any driver can buy unlimited protection if he is able to shell out for big premiums. Although the “no-fault” system is not flawless, it is not as imperfect as its detractors claim. Under a no-fault system, reckless se Scab eben gia drivers would still be subject to arrest for traffic violations. So there is no reason to believe, as some insurers who oppose change have argued, that reform would encourage careless driving. Also self-inflicted injuries, another cause of concern, would be disqualified for reimbursement under the new rroposals. Moreover, the belief that drivers who cause accidents are now pay- ing for their misdeeds because of fault-finding is just a myth. The moneythat goes to their victims—if and when it does—comes out of the insurance fund which is paid into by all policyholders. The question, really, is how wecan best distribute the proceeds of that fund. Late this spring, the U.S. Department of Transportation will issue the report of a two-year study that should further illuminate the problem. Legislatures in several states, including California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Indiana, and Tennessee are now considering alternatives for their jurisdic- One striking deficiency of all th plans submitted so far, it seems to me, is that none attacks the problem of double premiums for hospital and medical care. At this moment, millions of Americans are paying auto- should have climb as high os $10,000 before court remedies become available. Moreover, in those cases where court action becomes the only alternative, victims oughtto have the right insurance companies for protection against the costs of medical treatment. The same people are also pay- of a speedy decision. So instead of ing health-insurance premiums for the same protection. tem of “claims referees.” These would be qualified examiners who are attached to the state courts but are not themselves judges. They could relieve the judge of most crash cases, One obvious solution would be a program of national health care that would simply extend Medicare pro- making lit.gants wait in a long line to see a judge, why not have a sys- Then there would be no need for the hear the evidence, and order settlements—thus immeasurably speeding payment of duplicate medical-care premiums to auto insurers. up the system. The volume of mail that floods Secondiy, I do believe that auto insurance should go to somesort of no-fault system, although I don’t believe that either Keeton-O’Connell or the AIA plans are the final answer. Both deprive too many people of the right to go to court forsettlements tailored to their individual my office indicates that American motorists in great numbers are fed tection to everyone, young and old. cases. Clearly, the “no-fault” sys- term would be the mostefficient and tions. I think morestates should join inexpensive way of settling small in these critical studies. claims, but I don’t think the claim up with the present auto-insurance system and are demanding revolutionary changes. I don’t think our state and Federal governments are going to ignore that pressure. OneIllinois survey indicates that 70 percent of the public would prefer some kind of “no-fault” system. The public wants it, and certainly the public deserves it. @ Family Weekly, April 5, 1970 7 |