Uninsured In Oklahoma? You Could Get Towed

March 10th, 2010

The Insurance Journal is reporting an alarming new bill that was recently approved by the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

House Bill 2331, which was proposed by Representative Steve Martin (R-Bartlesville), Oklahoma drivers who are caught driving without auto insurance could have their vehicles impounded by the police.

Martin says the bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by the House in an 87-8 vote, will authorize Oklahoma law enforcement officers to use a newly established instant verification system that enables them to determine whether or not a vehicle is covered by the state’s required amount of liability insurance. If a vehicle is found to be uninsured, the police would then have the ability to have it towed away immediately.

Representative Martin says that there are studies which suggest as many as a quarter of all Oklahoma drivers are on the road without insurance coverage.

Some members of the Oklahoma House have expressed concern with the new verification system’, questioning its accuracy. It’s also possible that there may be an issue with how to handle passengers who may be in the vehicles to be towed, especially if they are children.

The bill must still be approved by the Oklahoma state Senate before it becomes law.

Some members expressed concern about the accuracy of the new verification system and the fate of passengers in the vehicle, especially children.

Legal Battle over California’s Prop 17 Heats Up

March 9th, 2010

California’s Sacramento Bee reported last week that the legal battle over the language in ballot initiative Proposition 17, which addresses auto insurance discounts.

Consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield, well-known in California as a vocal opponent of Proposition 17, filed a lawsuit in the Sacramento Superior Court on March 4th, The suit demands that the language in the proposition summaries that will be sent to voters. This suit is in direct response to another suit filed the week before by backers of Proposition 17, a group which is led by auto insurer Mercury General Corp.

In their lawsuit, the pro-Prop 17 camp claimed their opponents are misleading the voters. Rosenfield’s suit alleged the same things of Mercury.

The continuing debate is over a discount that insurers are already able to offer their customers who have maintained continuous coverage, and have not missed any premium payments. With Proposition 17, Mercury Insurance wants to make this discount “portable” – meaning they can offer it to customers of other companies. Mercury’s argument is that this will make the California insurance landscape more competitive.

Rosenfield, on the other hand, opposes the proposition because he feels that insurance should be a “zero-sum system.” His concern is that those drivers who don’t qualify for the discount will be stuck paying surcharges to make up for the discounts others are receiving.

The proposition is set for the June ballot.

Kansas Rethinks Ignition Interlock Notification Requirement

March 8th, 2010

Kansas is running into a serious debate with regard to its ignition interlock program for drivers convicted of DUIs. The devices, which prevent cars from starting unless the driver passes a breathalyzer test, have been in use in the state for some time, but a proposed amendment would remove a requirement forcing convicted drivers who are sentenced to ignition interlock usage to report to the state when they have acquired the devices.

Laura Dean-Mooney, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is urging Kansas lawmakers to to eliminate that amendment.

According to a report in the Wichita Eagle, Senator Mary Pilher Cook offered the amendment because one of her constituents informed her that they were ordered to use the ignition interlock device for a year, but could not, because they didn’t actually own a car.

“I don’t want people to drive drunk,” Cook, a Shawnee Republican, told the press. “I want our roads to be safe; I just want to find a solution for everybody.”

Lance Kinzer, Kansas House Judiciary Committee Chairman believes the amendment will be either removed, or at least altered, when his members analyze it during the coming week.

Under current Kansas law, motorists convicted of a second DUI, who refuse a breathalyzer, or who are caught with a 0.15 blood alchohol level (the legal limit is 0.08) must use the interlock device for a year or more. The devices cost $50-$70 to install and then there are $65-$75/month in fees. After installatation, the company that provided the device notifies the state, and the actual sentence begins.

The problem is that compliance has been low since the notification requirement began in July, 2006. because many drivers chose to risk getting pulled over, and didn’t bother installing the interlocks at all.

Kansas House Assistant Minority Leader, Rep Jim Ward (D-Wichita), a member of the House Judiciary Committee said he thought the DUI Commission should review the amendment before it gets added to any bill. The commission is currently engaged in a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s drunk driving laws.

Ward told the press, “There are a few … people without a vehicle, but they are very few. We don’t want to throw the baby and the bathwater out.”

Toyota Corolla Designated Top Safety Pick by IIHS

March 5th, 2010

Despite the fact that Toyota is taking a lot of heat for not addressing the gas pedal problems in its vehicles that resulted in many accidents and injuries, there is some positive safety news about the Japanese automaker. According to IIHS, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, both the Scion xB and the Toyota Corolla have earned the safety organization’s designation as Top Safety Picks.

To qualify as a Top Safety Pick, vehicles must earn a rating of “good” – the highest rating possible – in the front, side, rollover and rear-impact crash tests run by the Insititute, and they must also be equipped with electronic stability control. The Corolla and xB are the first Toyota models to earn such a designation, since the required criteria were tightened by the Institute, with the addition of the new rollover test this year.

The specifics behind a “good” rollover rating are that the vehicle’s roof must support the equivalent of four times the vehicle’s weight (as compared with the current Federal standard of only 1.5 times the weight), said a representative of the IIHS. In the Institute’s test, the Corolla’s roof supported 5.1 times the car’s weight, while the xB’s roof withstood a force equal to 6.8 times the car’s weight.

Institute president Adrian Lund told the press, “Top Safety Pick recognizes the vehicles that afford buyers the best overall protection in common crashes. With more top performers, there’s no reason to buy a small car with less than stellar crash test ratings.”

Both the xB and the Corolla also earned the 2009 Top Safety Pick award.

Florida Lawsuit Challenges Vicarious Liability Precepts

March 3rd, 2010

A report being distributed via the Associated Press, says that the Florida Supreme Court has been urged by an accident victim’s lawyer to rule that rental car companies can be held liable for damages in an accident they did not cause in Florida, despite the existence of a new Federal law intended to shield car rental companies from just such issues.

The legal concept in question, “vicarious liability,” refers to holding non-negligent owners responsible for damages, no matter who was actually driving the vehicle. The 2005 Graves Amendment, a federal law, prohibits such liability, except in states that have insurance or financial responsibility requirements for rental car companies. Representative Samuel Graves (R-MO), the law’s sponsor, believes it will save consumers $100 million a year, nationally.

So what’s the issue in Florida? The Supreme Court is investigating whether or not a Florida “Financial Responsibility” law meets the Federal exception criteria. The existing Florida state law says that if the person who drives or leases a rental vehicle is either uninsured, or has combined insurance limits of less than $500,000, the rental car company, “…shall be liable for up to an additional $500,000 in economic damages.”

Marjorie Gadarian Graham, representing the accident victim, told the court, “It is implicit that there is a requirement to maintain insurance albeit it is not expressly stated.” She also argued that the state legislature intended it to be an insurance requirement and that it’s explicit enough to except Florida from the Graves Amendment.

Enterprise Leasing Company’s attoriney, David C. Boruke, disagreed, and countered by saying, “Nothing is required. It’s an option. It’s an opportunity to make a cost-benefit analysis, but it is not required insurance by any stretch of the imagination.”

A trial judge in Palm Beach County and the 4th District Court of Appeal, in a 6-4 opinion, sided with Enterprise. Accident victim Rafael Vargas’s vicarious liability claim was rejected by both courts. Vargas had been injured when an Enterprise-owned vehicle rear-ended his car in February 2006. Vargas never alleged that the rental car company was at fault or negligent, nor did he allege that the lease was improper.

Despite siding with Enterprise, The 4th District certified the issue to the Supreme Court calling it a “…question of great public importance…” There are severall similar cases on hold pending a ruling, in Flordia, and other states are facing similar issues. One such state is Minnesota, where the state Supreme Court ruled that the Graves Amendment pre-empted a similar state law already on the books there.

Most of the resultant litigation has been at the federal level. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, GA, ruled that Florida’s law was also pre-empted. This means that the Florida court’s decision would apply only to state courts.

Texas Changes Licensing Requirements for Younger Drivers

March 2nd, 2010

Today’s post is brief, but important: Texas, which until recently did not require proof of driver education for license applicants over 18 years old, has put into effect a law actually passed by the 2009 legislature.

Effective this month, the Texas Department of Public Safety will now require proof that an approved driver education course has been completed, whenever an applicant between the age of 18 and 24 applies for a drivers license in the Lone Star State. In addition, such applicants must pass a driving skills test.

DPS says the proof must be in the form of a certificate showing successful completion of a driver education course approved by the Texas Education Agency. After providing this proof, applicants will still need to pass the driving skills part of the licensing exam, but the written highway signs and traffic laws test will be waived.

The Texas DPS adds that driver safety courses, defensive driving courses, and drug and alcohol driving awareness programs do not meet the “approved course” criteria.

A list of approved courses can be found here: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/drive/activede.html

Auto Insurance RateWatch: Arizona Up 2%

March 1st, 2010

In a trend that appears to be continuing with most auto insurers, Arizona auto insurance has seen a rate hike over the last half a year. Specifically, according to a report in the Insurance Journal, the median six-month rate has increased approximately 2%, to reach $829.00

According to data collected in Arizona, a driver in that state who actually pays that median rate, and earns the state median annual income (about $38,779/year) will be giving up approximately 4.28 percent of their gross annual income in order to maintain their insurance coverage. Using this “affordability factor,” Arizona comes in as the ninth most expensive state in which to insure a car or truck. As of this month, Massachusetts is the most affordable, despite their reputation for high auto insurance rates, probably because the medium income is higher. Louisiana, with a factor of 7.28 percent, is the most expensive state for car insurance under this system of measure.

Other facts pertaining to Arizona auto insurance are:

* Arizona men pay a median insurance rate that is more than 5 percent higher than what women pay.
* Young Arizona drivers – those under 19 years old – pay a median insurance rate that is more than 100% higher than the rate paid by drivers between the ages of 50 and 59.

This is just one example of rate hikes around the country.

Progressive’s “Corn for Kids” Program Returns for a Second Year

February 27th, 2010

Progressive, the United States’ number one motorcycle insurer is bringing their “Corn for Kids” program back for a second round.

The program, which debuted last year, allows bikers across the country to help their communities by eating free corn. The insurer is giving away hot roasted corn at motorcycle rallies across America, while also encouraging people to make small donations to their local food banks.

Specifically, “Corn for Kids” benefits Feeding America food banks across the nation, helping them feed children in need, as well as their families and other related charities. In its inaugural year, participating bikers ate 46,000 ears of corn and fed almost 170,000 families via their food bank donations.

Marcy Gray, a motorcycle product manager at Progressive, as well as a long-time rider herself, said in a press release, “Hot, sweet roasted corn is the perfect treat to attract bikers; we are thrilled to see so many partake in the program and hope to increase participation this year.”

Progressive’s “Corn for Kids” program will be offered at fifteen different motorcycle rallies, all of which are listed on Progressive’s website and their motorcycle Facebook page. Beginning April 15th, the general public (even non-bikers) will be able to participate by clicking a button on Progressive’s website to show their support. Each click will result in a meal being donated to a local Feeding America food bank.

Progressive’s goal for this year is to provide half a million meals to needy children and their families.

Driving Without Reading Leads to Common Problems

February 25th, 2010

A survey conducted in England by a British auto insurer reveals some interesting behavior about new car drivers. Most don’t have a clue about how their new cars work; they just get in and drive off.

The piece was eye-catching for me as I flashed back to a frantic call to my dealership several years ago as I was standing outside my car with the alarm shrieking and no idea how to stop it. I, like 35% of drivers (or at least those in England) hadn’t even glanced at the manual or I might have known to close the door, insert, and turn the key to disengage the alarm. (Notice it just took one ear-splitting incident for me to commit that procedure to memory.)

According to the study, 51% of drivers flick through the manual. Forty percent of women are more likely to drive without reading the manual as compared to 30% of men. The top five problems resulting from this self-imposed ignorance are:

  • No idea how to open the hood.
  • Clueless on the sound system.
  • Stumped by seat position.
  • Groping to turn on the headlights.
  • Ditto for the wipers.

Thankfully, I was saved most of that by a salesman who wouldn’t let me have the keys until I knew how to do each one of those things. Coincidentally, that’s exactly what the study recommended — dealers and garages walking new car owners through the basics before letting them tool off in their new cars.

Seriously, in the event of an accident caused by your fumbling to find the light switch, neither the police officer nor your insurance agent is going to be all that thrilled with the news that you didn’t just read the book in the glove compartment. We all know about defensive driving how about some defensive reading?

Not All Distracted Drivers Are Created Equal

February 23rd, 2010

ConsumerReports.org’s Cars Blog has an interesting post from February 19 on driving distraction by profession. Most of the recent talk on this topic — including a full-out push by Oprah Winfrey to marshal her viewers against cell phones in the car — focuses on talking and texting behind the wheel.

As it turns out, however, not all drivers desperate to stay in touch via voice, email, and text are created equal. Almost anyone on a tight schedule or who has important pending email relative to a project is guilty of picking up their flashing BlackBerry or beeping iPhone. The drivers with the greatest culpability, however, are apparently — and ironically — judges and lawyers.

Others who aren’t keeping their eyes on the road include financial professionals, government employees, bartenders and waiters, business people of any sort, dog groomers, advertising / marketing execs, barbers and hairstylists, coaches, and nurses. (Okay, I get financial professionals checking the markets, but dog groomers?!)

The safest drivers in terms of distractions are athletes and homemakers — a real surprise since suburban Moms in mini-vans have gained a reputation for yelling and breaking up fights while driving. (Or maybe this is just one of those things women have learned to manage more efficiently.)

At any rate, sufficient evidence has piled up to get legislators at all levels of government in high gear to get distracted driving laws on the books. Be prepared to have hands-free equipment in the car or be forced to prove that you weren’t thumb typing or talking in the event of an accident.