Question on auto insurance law in new budget

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by ranger17

there is nothing wrong with everyone on the road needing at least minimum coverage. It's wrong that I have to pay extra for un-insured motorists on my policies just to make sure i'm covered ( actually had to use it some years ago when tagged by someone with no license or insurance ).

Minimum coverage is somewhere around 25/50/10 which means if you total someone's new BMW you get $10K to pay for it, the other $40K comes out of your pocket--this is what is wrong with having minimum limits. What if that was your car and you were suddenly out the $40k?? The uninsured/underinsured covers YOU in this situation-your policy would pay (with no rate increase) for the rest of your car. Without the UM/UIM coverage, you get to pay the $40K. It doesn't go to the schlep that hit you.

[limapie]

Thank you for all the responses.

I said it before elsewhere: If a person owns nothing, then there is nothing to insure.
We own a 1989 Ford Bronco II. We keep it in good condition because we know
how to maintain cars. We don't own anything else.

Since the year 2000, we learned that it was totally stupid
to fool ourselves into believing that we'd ever have anything.

With the medical industry greeding at huge double digit inflation year after year,
and the banks killing people on student loans, and big wallstreeters eating tiny, whiny pensions into nothingness, while the government tells businesses that the money that was supposed to be put into pensions, well, it's okay that they don't do it now; the law is rewritten so that they won't
ever have to make deposits in arrears! no-growth wages, run away heating bills...etc, etc.--- we have nothing because the world won't let us
have anything! We've worked extremely hard our whole lives and have nothing! And it isn't
because we weren't good stewards. We were ALWAYS careful with money.
The world just changed to haves and have-nots.
We were in the middle, but now we're in the have-nots. That's just the way it is.
So go with the flow.

So what do we have to insure? May as well use bankruptcy for any boo-boos.
We qualify even though they changed the bankruptcy laws. Hey, they'll be bringing the debtor's
prisons back soon.

We'd like to eat, please. Allow us that anyway.

I don't believe for an instant that the auto insurance industry did not favor this law.

The reason it passed...is because the tipping point has been reached. The "haves"
are struggling to maintain themselves, but, they are fools. Only the really big "haves"
will stay liquid and win.

So, the new law stays-off and delays the inevitable for some people. It won't last long.
The majority of the population will be under soon enough.

And this isn't Wisconsin. It is the world!

[nickname]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Minimum coverage is somewhere around 25/50/10 which means if you total someone's new BMW you get $10K to pay for it, the other $40K comes out of your pocket--this is what is wrong with having minimum limits. What if that was your car and you were suddenly out the $40k?? The uninsured/underinsured covers YOU in this situation-your policy would pay (with no rate increase) for the rest of your car. Without the UM/UIM coverage, you get to pay the $40K. It doesn't go to the schlep that hit you.

Just as an FYI, UM and/or UIM does NOT cover your car. That coverage is for bodily injury. You still need Collision to have damage to your vehicle covered. Collision covers damage to your vehicle if you are at fault or if you are hit by an uninsured motorist. In a few states, UM PD coverage is available. That is Uninsured Motorists Property Damage (for your vehicle). I don't think WI is one of those states. Always talk to your licensed insurance professional to be sure you are carrying the coverage you need.

I completely agree that minimum limits are almost useless in the event of a serious accident. However, they are better than nothing.

[limapie]

Well, I finally broke down and emailed the assembly person's staff (forget the actual dude) from our district. I'll get back to you all with the news...if I get the news, that is.

I am totally amazed that not one specific news story is on the web. All I could find is:

CAR INSURANCE: The new requirement that all drivers in Wisconsin have liability insurance remains, but the mandatory amount of coverage drivers would have to purchase would only increase in 2010. Doyle had proposed raising those amounts again in 2011 and 2012. Instead, the levels would be adjusted again after five years. Doyle said he thought the move would help lower projected insurance rate increases.

See List Of Doyle's Budget Vetoes - Politics News Story - WISC Madison (http://www.channel3000.com/politics/19898055/detail.html - broken link)

[limapie]

Oh and people who bring boats into Wisconsin can do it free and clear of fees!
Courtecy of 09 budget. IL people are fully welcome to pollute our waters with
gas emitting engines....thank you very much. We'll take care of the clean up
for you.

[limapie]

Here's the response I got from my assembly rep:

Regarding your first question on when the mandatory auto insurance would be taken in effect, it would start January 1st, 2010. Below is the Governor's line item veto to explain coverage numbers as well.

ITEM D-16. MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

Required Minimum Liability Coverage Limits. As passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 75

would have increased the required minimum coverage limits for motor vehicle liability insurance

as follows:

a. Beginning January 1, 2010, in any one accident, $50,000 because of bodily injury to or

death of one person, $100,000 because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons, and

$15,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others (referred to as limits of

50/100/15);

b. Beginning January 1, 2011, in any one accident, $75,000 because of bodily injury to or

death of one person, $150,000 because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons, and

$20,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others (referred to as limits of

75/150/20); and

c. Beginning January 1, 2012, in any one accident, $100,000 because of bodily injury to

or death of one person, $300,000 because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons, and

$25,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others (referred to as limits of

100/300/25).

The bill would have also adjusted the levels set in 2012 every five years, beginning in 2017,

Page 41

to reflect changes in the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers, U.S. city average, for

the medical care group.

The Governor's partial veto eliminates the increases in minimum required liability coverage limits that would have occurred in January, 2011, and January, 2012. As a result, the new minimum required liability coverage limits will equal 50/100/15 effective January 1, 2010.

Beginning in 2017, these levels will be adjusted every five years to reflect changes in the CPI for all urban consumers, U.S. city average, for the medical care group.

[Act 28 Vetoed Sections: 2962t and 2963r]

Drive-other-car Exclusion. As passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 75 would have prohibited a motor vehicle insurance policy from denying uninsured motorist (UM) or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for an accident in which all of the following apply to the motor vehicle:
(a) the vehicle is owned by the insured individual, or that individual's spouse or relative who lives in the insured's household;
(b) the vehicle is not described in the policy under which the claim is made;
and (c) the vehicle is not covered by the policy as a newly acquired or
replacement vehicle. This would have prohibited a policy from having a "drive-other-car" exclusion, allowing UM and UIM coverage to apply to accidents involving other uninsured vehicles owned by the insured.

The Governor's partial veto deletes this provision.

[Act 28 Vetoed Sections: 3147, 3172, 9326(6) and 9426(2)]

Premium Determination Based on Location. As passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 75 would have prohibited an insurer, when issuing or renewing a motor vehicle insurance policy, from assessing an applicant's or an insured's risk on the basis of the city, village, town, or county in which the insured motor vehicle is customarily kept. The Governor's partial veto
deletes this provision.

To answer the last question regarding the primary enforcement for seat violations, yes, if a police officer pulls you over they have probable cause and there is an interaction between the driver and the officer. If a police officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion, hence, this is where sometime bigger violations come to light. It is unfortunate, but it occurs
with other minor violations such as a tail light being out or a missing license plate.

Thank you again for contacting my office and please excuse the delay in my return. Please contact me further if you have any additional questions.

RICHARD SPANBAUER
State Representative
53rd Assembly District

I asked if the DOT can revoke your license without the driver knowing it.
Yes they can, according to Spanbauer. And then I asked if a driver can be held for police officer charges resulting from not knowing that your license was revoked. Ignorance is no excuse, according to Spanbauer.

So moral of story....if you ever get near a police officer FOR ANYTHING...doesn't have to be driving related...
always check to see that you still have a driver's license afterward as this could be revoked for any reason and then you could get ticketed, court cased, possibly jailed etc for driving without a license.

Also, you can't trust that your insurance will notify the DOT proper
about your "new" coverage. The DOT might not be properly informed
and THEN you'd get revoked! Drive with a revoked license! And then
you'd STILL have to pay!

Pretty oppressive if you ask me.

[Dave Newman]

[LEFT]Unless you are an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer, you won't be so cocky after you get your next insurance bill. If you are so filthy rich that you can flush money down the toilet, then good for you.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/wisco...#ixzz0ij0EiSEt
[/LEFT]

[xizzi]

I think insurance is good, especially if someone hits me and they do not have it. American Family Insurance has rates that no other company could ever beat