The Auto Choice Reform Act of 1997: Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifth Congress, First Session, July 17, 1997 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accident victims ance Andrew Tobias auto accident Auto Choice Reform auto insurance premiums auto insurance system automobile insurance Average Liability Premiums average premium benefits billion bodily injury California Carroll Chairman choice plan Choice Reform Act choice system choose Civil Justice claims Committee compensation consumers Consumers Union court coverage current system dollars drivers economic loss expensive fault law fault systems Federal fraud Georgia incentive Institute for Civil Insurance Commissioners insurance companies insurance industry insurance policy insurance rates issue John Garamendi JOHN MCCAIN lawsuits lawyers legislation litigation mandatory no fault Manhattan Institute McCarran-Ferguson Act Michael Horowitz MITCH MCCONNELL miums motorists NAIC no-fault insurance no-fault laws noneconomic loss option pain and suffering personal injury policy owners PREPARED STATEMENT proposal Proposition 103 RAND reduce repealed rollback Rosenfield Ryles savings Senator ASHCROFT Senator GORTON sumers surance Tobias tort reform tort system transaction costs U.S. SENATOR uninsured Voter Revolt
Popular passages
Page 92 - I respectfully request that this letter be made part of the official record of the hearings on HR 6245.
Page 24 - A distinguished committee made such a recommendation in a comprehensive report to the Columbia University Council for Research in the Social Sciences in 1932.
Page 11 - Court of Chancery, eating up the pittance of widows and orphans, a vale from which few return with their respect for justice undiminished.
Page 76 - That is, we estimate savings on compensation costs and then estimate how total premiums would have to vary to maintain the existing ratio of total premiums to compensation costs. We do not attempt to estimate the plan's effects on the costs of any particular coverage. Specifically, we compare the average amount insurers pay per insured driver under all coverages in the current system to the average amount paid under all coverages on behalf of drivers who choose either MCS or ANF under the choice...
Page 93 - Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the citizens of the city of Great Bend, Kans., we wish to express our appreciation and thanks for this opportunity to appear before this committe.
Page 11 - The victim has every reason to exaggerate his losses. It is some other person's insurance company that must pay. The company has every reason to resist. It is somebody else's customer who is making the claim. Delay, fraud, contentiousness are maximized, and in the process the system becomes grossly inefficient and expensive.
Page 71 - Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Utah.
Page 58 - Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I am here today, and have been working on this issue for 17 years primarily for two reasons: • In many states, more than half the dollars that consumers pay for the lodily injury” portions of their auto insurance gets eaten up by Legal fees and fraud.
Page 76 - We focus on how the choice plan affects auto insurers' compensation costs, including both the amounts insurers pay out in compensation and the transaction costs they incur in providing that compensation.
Page 56 - ... produces results which are so unjust, so capricious, and so wasteful of both the policyholder's and the accident victim's money that most laymen find it hard to believe the facts when they are first presented." Needed: A Basic Reform of Automobile Liability Insurance: Part 6, 27 CONSUMER REPORTS 404 (1962). "Our system is no longer one of liability based on fault in the sense that made it originally seem so fair and gave it so strong a moral claim. No longer does it make the wrongdoer pay for...