Auto insurance is a critical resource to have after an auto accident, as anybody who has been in a serious crash understands. Florida, unlike some other states, has a no-fault insurance system in which motorists are required to carry minimum levels of personal injury protection (PIP) to cover medical costs when an accident occurs.
We are continuing our discussion of life insurance policies and different ways the policy owner can take advantage of a policy’s value. Our focus here is on one particular option: the life settlement.
In July 2014, we wrote a series of posts about stranger-originated life insurance policies and the efforts of various states, including Florida, to regulate, even to eliminate STOLIs. With STOLIs taking so much of the spotlight, though, life insurance companies found it difficult to explain legitimate ways to turn a policy into cash.
We are talking about a lawsuit two taxi companies and an Uber customer filed against the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. As we said in our last post, the plaintiffs do not want money damages; they are requesting that the court order the FDHSMV to answer a question about the state’s insurance requirements for for-hire passenger vehicles.
It’s safe to say that taxi and limousine companies are wary of Uber and its transportation network company kin. It’s also safe to say that Florida’s taxi companies are not alone in their misgivings.
We are finishing up our discussion of a workers’ compensation lawsuit that could change the way Florida and every other state approach workers’ comp as an injured workers’ sole remedy. As we explained in our last post, the Court of Appeal focused on procedural issues. The appellate panel found that the complaining parties had no real argument with the state, had suffered no actual losses as a result of the workers’ comp statute. As a result, the court was not required to give a second thought to the constitutionality issue.
The Florida Court of Appeal decision we have been talking about skirts an important question, and the appellees have asked the state Supreme Court not only to review the decision but to address the central issue. The court has asked for revised filings, but it is still not clear whether the case will be added to the docket.
We are continuing our discussion of workers’ compensation. Policymakers are beginning to wonder if the system in general or just pieces of it are perhaps past their prime. But, if just some parts are no longer relevant, can the system survive without them?
One of the complaints about personal injury lawsuits has been that the results are so inconsistent. A woman who loses her husband, the father of their three young children, in a drunk driving accident could be awarded millions in damages by one jury and less then $1 million by another. State laws try to control damage awards, especially for pain and suffering, but with mixed success. The dollar amounts may be lower, but, opponents argue, what if the plaintiff deserves more? What if making a plaintiff whole will really cost twice the amount the state has decided is quite enough, thank you?
After discussing market considerations in setting insurance rates, we turn to recent activity in Congress. As you recall from our last two posts, insurance companies are required to set rates based on risk and loss expectations, not on supply or demand issues. Florida regulators maintain that insurance companies are increasing premiums because they can, not because they have to: Insurers realize that there is very little competition in some parts of the state and that they have, pardon the insurance pun, a captive audience.
