|
|
Auto insurance reform the right way --
increased choice, lower premiums, better compensation
|
|
|
What
is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Overview
Summary
Supporters
Editorials |
|
|
The
Legislation |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Senate Bill in the 108th Congress
S.
2931, bill
status and summary
S. 2931, in PDF (via GAO)
U.S.
House of Representatives Bill in the 107th Congress
H.R. 1704 bill
status and summary
H.R.
1704 in PDF (via GAO)
U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives Bills in the 106th Congress
S. 837 bill status and summary
H.R. 1475 bill status and
summary
S.
837 in PDF (via GPO)
H.R.
1475 in PDF (via GPO)
Sponsors' Statements
-Senator
John Cornyn
-Senator Mitch McConnell
-Senator John McCain
-Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
-Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan
-Representative Richard K. Armey
-Representative James P. Moran
Congressional Testimony
-The Honorable Michael Dukakis*
-Wellington E. Webb, Mayor, Denver
-Professor Jeffrey O'Connell,
University of Virginia School of Law*
-Andrew Tobias, author and
consumer activist
-Peter Kinzler, President, Coalition for
Auto-Insurance Reform*
-Robert Lee Maril, "The Impact of
Mandatory Auto Insurance Upon Low Income Americans"*
-Dr. Stephen
J. Carroll, RAND Institute for Civil Justice*
-Michael
Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
*Adobe Acrobat files
Impact on Cost,
Compensation and Driving Behavior |
|
|
|
| |
|
Peter Kinzler, Auto Insurance Reform Options: How to Change State
Tort and No-Fault Laws to Reduce Premiums and Increase Consumer Choice
(NAMIC, 2006). Analyzes the history of auto insurance
reform efforts at the state and federal level, finds the "tort
versus no-fault" reform paradigm to be a false choice and, instead,
offers a series of recommendations to lower premiums and, in some cases,
improve compensation and increase choice in both tort and no-fault
states.
Peter
Kinzler, "Colorado's New Tort Auto Insurance: A Bad Deal
for Motorists and Emergency Medical Care" (2004)
Finds that the average driver will save
little from the return to the tort system from Colorado's flawed
no-fault system and will sacrifice much in the way of lost
compensation. Recommends an auto choice system to permit drivers
to choose between the tort system and a pure no-fault system that
would offer greater compensation at a cost lower than that of the tort
system.
Joint
Economic Committee, "Choice in Auto Insurance: Updated
Savings Estimates for Auto Choice" (2003)
Estimates
total potential savings from adoption of the Auto Choice Reform Act at
nearly $48 billion in 2003, with an average savings of $189 per
vehicle. Low-income drivers would enjoy average savings of 37
percent.
Jeffrey
O'Connell, Peter Kinzler and Hunter Bates, "A Federal Bill, with
Commentary, To Allow Choice in Auto Insurance" (2001)
A section-by-section analysis, with
detailed analysis of the implications, of H.R. 1704, the Auto Choice
Reform Act of 2001.
RAND Institute for Civil Justice,
"The Effect of No-Fault Insurance on Driver Behavior and Automobile Accidents in the United
States" (2001)
The report examines
trends in automobile accident rates and rates of driver negligence in the United States
between 1967 and 1989 and finds no evidence that the adoption of 16 state no-fault auto
insurance laws in the 1970s increased fatal accident rates in those states. It also
finds no correlation between the presence of no-fault auto insurance and a state's overall
accident rate or rate of driver negligence
Peter
Kinzler and Jeffrey O'Connell, "More for Less Under Auto
Choice: Fewer Dollars for Lawyers, Fraud, Pain and Suffering and
Insurance Companies Mean Lower Premiums and
Better Compensation for Motorists" (2001) Identifies how all of
the options under the federal auto choice legislation would provide,
on average, both better compensation for serious injuries and lower
premiums. This article is an updated version of a chapter that
appears in Lascher and Powers, "The Economics and Politics of
Choice No-Fault (2001).
New England Journal of Medicine, "Effect of Eliminating
Compensation for Pain and Suffering on the Outcome of Insurance Claims for Whiplash
Injury" (2000) Finds fewer whiplash claims
and speedier recoveries when people injured in auto crashes are assured compensation
for their medical bills but not for pain and suffering claims (based on experience in
Saskatchewan, Canada)
Committee
for Economic Development, "Breaking the Litigation Habit: Economic Incentives
for Legal Reform" (2000) Cites the benefits to both motorists and businesses from a system that
compensates injured people for their medical bills and lost wages without litigation.
RAND
Institute for Civil Justice, "The Effects of a Choice Automobile Insurance Plan on
Insurance Costs and Compensation: An Analysis Based on 1997 Data" (1999)
Updates cost savings estimates under the new personal injury protection insurance option
of Auto Choice at an average of 56 percent on bodily injury premiums or a 23 percent
reduction in total auto insurance premiums.
Impact
on Cities, the Poor, Businesses, Consumers and Choice |
|
|
|
|
|
Joint Economic Committee,
"Auto Choice: Impact on Cities and the Poor" (1998)
Joint Economic Committee,
"Auto Choice: Relief for Businesses & Consumers" (1998)
RAND Institute for Civil
Justice, "Choosing an Alternative to Tort" (1995)
RAND
Institute for Civil Justice, "How Big Is the Price Tag for Excess Auto Injury
Claims?" (1996)
National Center for Policy Analysis (Michael
Horowitz), "Putting Drivers in the Driver's Seat" (1998)
Citizens for a Sound Economy,
"Auto Insurance and the Urban Poor" (1999)
Freedom Works, "In Defense of Auto Choice Insurance Reform" (1998)
Freedom Works, "Escaping the Tort-Based Auto Accident
Compensation System: The Federal Auto Choice Reform Act of 1997" (1997)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have questions about the Auto Choice Reform Act, please contact
pkinzler@cox.net |
|