As I know also when you have a accident in a case like this your health insurance picks up the tab also till you have a settle then they ask for repayment.
But your auto insurance company under this law allows them to collect the other guys insurance limits. You have $300,000 in under insurance,and the defendant has $25,000 you do not get $325,000 in a settlement. You only get $300,000. It did not use to be this way.

SwissChick
I feel for you. What I do not understand is how the court protects his home,and etc from you liquidating?

The insurance companies did NOT want this law to pass and its not the required coverage that's the issue, its the stacking of the coverage that is causing the premiums to go up significantly. Don't kid yourself people this is the 1st step to the Healthcare reform - its to make sure when the gov't takes over healthcare, they have a bigger pocket book from the insurance companies to pay for more of the medical expense arrising from auto accidents. Its completely politics: like they also increased the minimum for medical payments on your auto policy to $10,000 but you can reject it if you want - oxymoron to have to have an amount but you can sign off if you want - HELLO!

I think it is worth noting that this 'bill' was not an individual bill. This was passed INSIDE the State Budget.

Also, some people are seeing an increase in premium, but oftentimes you are getting more COVERAGE than you had. Do not hesitate to contact your agent if you have questions.

Yeah, I carry over the new minimums and I don't know why my rates should go up. Doesn't make sense since I'm already doing the right thing.

Let's see -- responsible, insured drivers will have to pay more for insurance while those without insurance will continue to drive until they are caught, then continue to drive again and again after that. Sounds like a fair and equitable plan to me ... not!

Maybe the way to do it would have been to require the uninsured drivers to bear the burden FIRST, before those who have insurance get fleeced. At least that way it would have SEEMED to be more fair!

Ultimately, I doubt this law will do anything more than drive up rates for law-abiding citizens, while the violators just keep on driving and driving -- I bet it's cheaper for most of them to pay the citations than to pay what are most likely to be high insurance rates based on their probable less-than-clean driving records.

Shotgunwillie - That is true. It's called subrogation (sp?). Been there - done that. (On the receiving end of a six-time drunk driver). All he had was $25,000 liability and he rear-ended me, pushed me 145 ft. (and I was going 10 miles an hour to pull into my driveway). Drive shaft was on the road 50 ft. ahead of me. I was off work for 11 months. $25,000 didn't do squat.

Although I think everyone should have insurance, ask Illinois how that is going down there. Drivers are continually picked up for not having it. They have "safety checks" around Rockford during the weekends and many are cited for not having insurance.

wesgonsin - BINGO!!!

Not sure what the net gain is here. If anything, it appears to support lawyers and insurance providers and may actually make the problem worse with more underinsured motorists on the road. There's no excuse for unisured, that's a given. So what is the real gain here?

Also -- I do not believe in no fault. My rates go up for no fault of my own. If there is a definite person at fault, their insurance should pay or they should pay. Mine should only kick in if they are underinsured. And then , my insurance should be able to collect from them personally.

Forced responsibility isn't freedom. It's ownership.

I do believe our "Pete" is back in the game. Just call him, "ShotgunWillie". Welcome back, Pete.

The story does not tell you.
If you have $300,000 of under insured coverage, and a person hits you only has $100,000 of insurance.
Then it is determine your settlement is $400,000.
*** You do not get your $300,000 + his $100,000 = $400,000 No No No **
** You Get $400,000 - $100,000 = $300,000
* Your Insurance Company takes his $100,000
This is how the law is written.
** If you agent has a clue ask them about the new rules.
This has changed, and it was not like this before till now.

Sprout, if someone chooses to drive without insurance what makes you think they are very concerned about registering their vehicles? JohnDoe is right -- "deadbeats" will continue to drive without insurance and/or registration.

"Driving is a privilege, not a right"

That's true....but...

If you think just because there is a law people will obey it....

Think again sprout.

All I'm saying is that no matter how much you legislate, there will still be offenders. Not saying it's a bad law but just don't kid yourself into believing it's a cure-all.

The so called "deadbeats" will still be driving without insurance or registration.

Sprout said, "This is a good law, it will make the dead beats buy insurance."

Seriously, Sprout, why would anyone who didn't buy insurance prior to this law, buy it after this law takes effect? Premiums will only be higher now and the net effect will be FEWER people buying insurance.

I really hope that their is a provision allowing law enforcement to tow uninsured cars on the roadway, without that the bill has barely any bite. Im in GA right now and in this supposed "backwards" state I can tow your car if you dont have insurance, which is shown on any tag check via computer (insurance companies report directly to an automated system). Ive seen too many bad wrecks with one or both drivers not insured. I will tell you all back in Wisky that you should be prepared for a LARGE increase in hit and runs. The law here was changed 3 years ago where the driver was only cited for no insurance, you used to go to jail for driving without insurance. In no way do I like insurance companies, but I like to have my car fixed when it gets hit on the other guys dime...drive safe in the snow!

sprout wrote: "This is a good law, it will make the dead beats buy insurance"

Think again sprout.

" If the gov Dolt had a brain he'd send all the illegal's to INS."

Once again...think again sprout. The INS has no prioritive reason to act upon any local immigration issues...NONE WHATSOEVER.

"The insurance companies are thieves"
Yes, that is true.

My son was recently hit sitting at a stoplight by an uninsured motorist, he had to go the hospital, his car was damaged and what happens to this lady, nothing. She should have had to have had insurance to begin, she had a nice enough car, much nicer than my son's maybe she should have bought a less flashy car and splurged on some liability insurance instead. So now my insurance must pay for his hospital bills and his car does not get fixed, we only had liabilty on his because it was a starter car. I am all for everyone being required to have insurance if you are going to own/drive a vehicle. Maybe in the long run it will save as my insurance company now has to try to recoup its losses from a deadbeat

To wesgonsin: You said it all in a nutshell! I couldn't agree with you more!

We can thank our buddy Doyle for this one.

Insurance companies are some of the most corrupt on the planet. We need insurances, sure... But let's face it. Nine times out of ten, your paying for nothing.

What it's all going to boil down to in the end, I think, is the rest of us having to fork out even more in the long run because The Powers That Be refuse to get tough on drunk/impaired drivers and/or illegal aliens that just simply cannot understand how to read a road sign printed in English.

increase to cover lower insured people ohhhhhhh welllllllllll dictatorship in full swing. Well a least something is going up besides gas and taxes.But not to better the working class nor put food on the table. We need JOBS not bank draining news.

what recession?

I hope this bill was entitled "The Personal Injury Lawyers Stimulus Act." I guess the economy has been tough on them too. So, let's increase minimum coverage requirements to help them through the crisis.