The California Department of Insurance has ordered Allstate Insurance Company, who insures about 10% of all California cars, to reduce their rates by 15.9%.
DOI has insisted that insurers adhere to the key rate factors in determining the appropriate risk that an insured will be involved in an automobile accident: a person's driving record, the number of years behind the wheel, and the number of miles driven per year.
"It was very clear that they were charging too much," said Douglas Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, the Santa Monica-based advocacy group that successfully championed Proposition 103 in 1988. The voter-approved initiative turned insurance into a highly regulated business, similar to power companies and other public utilities.
DOI is also attacking Allstate for excessive charges for homeowners' insurance, which provide resources to pay premises liability claims.
It is anticipated that the rate ruling will force other insurers to reduce their rates as well.
Most San Diegans drive with auto insurance. But most are severely under-insured or don't have the right kind of insurance to do them the most good if they are involved in an auto accident.
Unfortunately, our office usually typically has the opportunity to advise clients of their proper insurance needs ONLY after they've been in an accident and it's clear to them they were under-insured. So, please consider this to be a preemptive public safety announcement to all San Diegans.
1. Do Not Purchase Minimum Insurance. The minimum amount of insurance coverage necessary to drive a car in California is bodily injury coverage of $15K/$30K. This means that, in the event that you negligently cause an accident, your insurance carrier will pay all medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering for those you injured up to $15K per person or $30K per accident. If their damages exceed this amount, then you could be personally responsible for the balance. Obviously $15K isn't much money and automobile accident claims can easily exceed this amount, particularly where there is a claim for wrongful death. It is important that you purchase as much bodily injury coverage as you can afford. This is not only important to protect your assets, but, as the next section will make clear, so that you can maximize your under-insured/uninsured motorist coverage.
2. Purchase As Much UM/UIM Insurance Coverage As You Can. Ok, you're responsible. You purchased as much bodily injury coverage as you can. But the other guy, just assume that he is not responsible and is carrying only the minimum coverage--or no coverage at all! That is why you need to maximize your uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage (UM/UIM). UM/UIM allows you to turn to your own insurance to pay for your injuries which exceed the limits of the other driver's insurance policy. However, you can only purchase UM/UIM coverage up to the limits of your bodily injury coverage. So, if your bodily injury coverage is $100K, that is the most UM/UIM coverage you can purchase. UM/UIM is one of the cheapest components of an auto insurance policy. There is no excuse not to have it.
Progressive Insurance's slippery and underhanded tactics have been profiled before. See here. Here too.
Now comes Progressive's latest dirty trick: offering personal injury settlements in auto accident cases before victims even get a chance to see a doctor.
We've written about Benetta Buell-Wilson before. Earlier this week, the California 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its' ruling that Ms. Wilson was entitled to $82.6 Million after the US Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals should review its' ruling.
Ms. Wilson was originally awarded $370 Million dollars by a San Diego Jury. The verdict was later reduced by the trial court to $102 Million and then to $82.6 Million by the Court of Appeal. However, when given the opportunity to reduce this verdict again, the Court of Appeal declined.
The Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. is important for several reasons. First, it was the first time that Ford was held responsible for injuries resulting from a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident. During the trial, Ms. Buell-Wilson's attorneys effectively proved that Ford was aware that the Explorer was dangerously unstable and prone to oversteer leading to rollovers. Ford also knew that in the event of a roll-over, the Explorer's roof was not strong enough to prevent crush. The cost of preventing rollover roof crushes was minimal, yet Ford refused to make he necessary changes. This is oddly reminiscent of prior Ford safety shortcomings; e.g., the Ford Pinto, use of Firestone ATX tires, etc.
Congratulations to Ms. Buell-Wilson. We hope that this latest ruling provides you with peace...after more than a decade of litigation against Ford's lawyers and unlimited bankroll.
UPDATE: Ms. Buell-Wilson is going to continue to wait for justice. Ford has decided to appeal the latest court ruling.
Know all those HUGE, "outrageous" verdicts that tort reformers cite as proof that juries are out of their minds and are too plaintiff-friendly? This is the story of one such verdict and, unfortunately, it is not unusual.
In 2004, a San Diego jury awarded Benetta Buell-Wilson and her family nearly $370 Million dollars in a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident case. Now, the Supreme Court will review the verdict and possibly reduce it. The Supreme Court will be the third court to do so after the trial court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals both reduced the verdict from $122 Million in compensatory damages and $246 Million in punitive damages to $27.6 Million (compensatory) and $55 Million (punitive).
What happened to Benetta?:
On a January afternoon in 2002, Buell-Wilson was driving at a normal speed on Interstate 8 east of San Diego when she swerved to avoid a metal object that had fallen off a motor home. Her 1997 Explorer fishtailed and rolled over four times. Part of its roof was crushed, and Buell-Wilson suffered a severe spinal injury.
As a result of the accident, Benetta is now paralyzed and confined to a wheel-chair.
Now, Ford had previously won 13 trials without a loss. And they weren't shy about sharing that fact during litigation in the hopes of forcing Benetta and her husband to settle.
Plaintiffs were 0-13 and Benetta and her attorneys were risking a huge disappointment. These cases are not cheap to try. I've heard some estimates that Benetta's attorneys paid upwards of $750,000 to experts to prepare and try the case. And if they lost, the lawyers would lose that investment, Benetta would be forced to pay for all future care by herself out of her own pocket, and, worse still, Benetta would be forced to pay Ford's litigation costs.
Given all this risk, and the evidence that Ford knew of problems with its' vehicles for roof crush and roll over propensity, is $370 Million dollars outrageous to pay for a permanent injury and to punish Ford for its' callousness?
In fact, the problem had been well-documented for years:
No recall has ever been ordered for these vehicles. How many are still out on the road? How many more roof crush injuries or deaths will still occur? Will Ford EVER be forced to pay enough that they will consider the safety of their customers?
The Supreme Court should uphold the reduced verdict. Ford is already emboldened by the two prior reductions. No need to make it worse for consumer safety.
According to the article, critics argue that Progressive's program violates California's anti-steering laws by allowing its adjusters to write their own property damage estimates and direct their insureds to pre-approved body shops for the work. In addition--and wait until you hear about this--critics claim that Progressive's program seeks to reduce repair costs by cutting corners! Shocker!
Sarcasm aside, this seems to be the usual modus operandi for insurance companies. Why replace when cosmetic patching will do? Why use new parts when refurbished products can be found? And don't get me started on the repeated failure of insurance adjusters to ignore alignment and other structural issues in favor of concentrating on cosmetic damages. Too many of our office's auto accident clients have complained that their car just doesn't drive the same afterwards for it to be a coincidence.
The public shouldn't be so gullible to believe the commercials--the insurance companies are not out there to act in your best interests. They make money by collecting premiums and paying out less than the premiums they collect. If they have to actually use quality labor and parts, it just makes it that much harder.
There are hundreds of automobile injury accidents in San Diego each month where victims don't have a prayer of being fully compensated for their injuries. That is, unless they have the ONE coverage that they absolutely need.
That coverage is....uninsured motorist coverage.
California law has required motorists to cover automobile liability insurance for years. But this has not stopped the number of uninsured motorists in California to reach epidemic proportions. Some estimate that 23 percent of motorists in Los Angeles are uninsured and 15 percent of injury accidents in California involve uninsured motorists. This has led some legislators to look for a legislative solution.
A serious "t-bone" car accident last Friday, illustrates--yet again--the importance of wearing seatbelts.
As if Governor Corzine's serious injury accident hadn't already done so.
A car ran a red light and broadsided a mini-van at the corner of 5th Street and A Street.
According to the police, the two adults and five children involved in the accident were wearing seatbelts--which may have saved their lives.
Surprisingly, the driver of the car was not seriously hurt.
We at the Jurewitz Law Group regularly see car accident injury victims that are lucky to be alive, but for the fact that they were wearing seatbelts. Please make sure you wear your seatbelt at all times.
