December 19, 2009
/24-7PressRelease/ --
Wisconsin Drivers Fume Over Increased Car Insurance Premiums
Article provided by Derzon & Menard, S.C.
Visit us at
www.derzonmenard.com
Wisconsin drivers are more than a little upset about the auto insurance mandates included in this year's state budget bill. So far, for their concerns, all they have to show is a whole lot of finger-pointing.
The insurance amendment getting the most heat is one that boosts minimum liability limits. The changes, which are slated to go into effect on January 1, 2010, would increase minimum liability limits from:
-$25,000 to $50,000 per person
-$50,000 to 100,000 per incident
-$10,000 to $15,000 for property damage
A "stacking provision" was also included in the changes, allowing coverage limits to be multiplied by the number of cars covered in a multiple vehicle policy. For example, say that you have two cars and that each is covered by $500,000 in insurance under a two-car policy. If you cause an accident in one of the cars, the coverage limit would be the maximum of all cars under the multiple-car policy. In this case the maximum coverage would be $1,000,000.
With greater coverage come greater premiums -- right?
Insurance providers are emphatically nodding yes, but state legislators don't see it that way. Senate Majority Leader Tom Nelson placed the blame for higher car insurance premiums squarely on the shoulders of the insurance industry. Supporters of insurance changes accuse insurance providers of using the legislation as a cover to raise costs.
Meanwhile, a group of Wisconsin's legislators is working on a bill that would repeal the changes made to minimum car insurance requirements.
So, why were the changes made in the first place?
Wisconsin, which previously had among the lowest insurance costs of any state, had not increased minimum coverage levels for 29 years. Many argued that the minimum car insurance coverage no longer reflected the reality of accident costs.
The amounts awarded to victims of car accidents were simply not sufficient to cover medical costs and property damage.
Opponents of the increase argued that insured drivers -- even those with spotless records -- would be punished unfairly. Even insurance companies lobbied strongly against the changes, perhaps sensing the coming backlash. They argued that, instead of more drivers with better liability coverage, the law would lead to more drivers with no coverage at all.
The end result of the ongoing debate, most likely, will lie somewhere between the positions held by both sides -- better liability coverage, but with some sort of price relief for drivers struggling to make insurance payments.
Article provided by Derzon & Menard, S.C.
Visit us at
www.derzonmenard.com---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com# # #
Read more Press Releases from Findlaw PR:
