CBIA'S KNEE-JERK REACTION

CBIA CALLED ON CARPET FOR KNEE-JERK REACTION

In today’s edition of the “Hartford Business Journal” the Connecticut Business and Industry Association was called on the carpet for its knee-jerk reaction before the legislature to Senate Bill 1244, an act requiring disclosure of insurance policy limits.
I blogged about this subject on March 5.

In the “Journal’s” timely piece, it is noted that CBIA’ reaction to the mandatory disclosure bill was not well thought out nor was the testimony of CBIA staff attorney Kevin Hennessy. The reality is that disclosure of policy limits has nothing to do with the amount of money a particular claimant pursues. Nor is it even a target for a lawyer. The information does enable an attorney to make important informed decisions about how to proceed with a case and disclosure of limited coverage will likely mean no lawsuit and an early settlement in appropriate cases. In other cases, the information is necessary to determine whether and to what extent an underinsured motorist case should be brought. Still in other cases, the amount of coverage may determine the number and type of defendants that may be necessary in a particular case.

Notably, the “Journal’s” hypothesis about cynics believing that injured people will go unrepresented if there is timely disclosure of policy limits is nothing more than speculation. We would certainly have at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that cases were being dropped like “hot potatoes” after suit was commenced and defendants were forced to comply with mandatory disclosure of policy limits consistent with the Rules of Practice.

The “Journal” points out that Carl Anderson, President of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association is probably right when he asserts that mandatory disclosure of policy limits will probably lead to less litigation and not more. That view is based upon experience in the litigation trenches. It is well considered and not a “knee-jerk” claim. It is based upon a practical analysis. It should make the legislature concerned about the extent to which other “information” fed to it by the CBIA is similarly “knee-jerk” and wanting for an empirical or at least a practical basis.

Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford St.
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel. 203-325-8600
Fax 203-323-5970
www.casperdetoledo.com

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BUYING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN CONNECTICUT?

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BUYING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN CONNECTICUT?

What did you pay for a movie in 1977? How about a half-gallon of milk or a loaf of bread? What did it cost you to get treated for broken leg? How much money did an elementary school teacher earn?

With the passage of time, the cost of everything has gone up. That includes the cost of repairing a car and paying “fair just and reasonable damages” negligently inflicted in a car crash. But during all of this time, the minimum insurance limits required to drive a car in Connecticut have not risen. The minimum has remained stagnant at $20,000 per person per car accident; $40,000 per car accident and $10,000 for property damage. This means that no one injured person can receive damages exceeding $20,000 and no matter the number of injured people, the aggregate damages cannot exceed $40,000 with a $10,000 limit to repair or replace all of the “other vehicles involved in the crash.” It should be time for a change.

On February 27 the State Legislature’s Insurance and Real Estate Committee passed a bill to raise the minimum insurance limits to $40,000 per person, $50,000 per accident and $20,000 for property damage. If passed by the majority of the House of Representatives and the State Senate and then signed by Governor Rell, it will be progress. Not only will the state government make some progress toward a more equitable system of legal accountability, but a requirement for increased coverage limits should provide some relief to people who now pay for drivers who are underinsured.

Of course, there are always two sides to a story and by increasing the minimum required insurance coverage the legislature may be inadvertently encouraging more people to drive without insurance in violation of Section 14-112 of the Connecticut General Statutes. But in all fairness, there must be realistic minimum responsibilities met in exchange for the privilege of registering a car and operating on the highways and roads of this state.

Meeting the minimum insurance requirements of the state is rarely adequate protection for you, your family members and people you may injure. Our web site, http://www.casperdetoledo.com/ has a broader discussion of considerations to undertake when purchasing automobile insurance in Connecticut.

You should make your feelings known about this and other legislation pending before the state legislature. Contact your State Representative and State Senator.