NORTHEAST REGIONAL NEWS
Late last year, Governor George Pataki vetoed a bill that would have required insurers to provide no-fault benefits to an operator of a vehicle who is intoxicated. "This irresponsible bill would have driven up New York personal injury protection (PIP) costs at a time when widespread, blatant fraud is already pushing no-fault costs through the roof," said Joseph Termini, counsel for the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII), a group that lobbied against the bill. "It would have required responsible New York drivers to pay for the resulting injuries caused by the illegal act of driving drunk."
In a related matter, Allstate Insurance Company recently increased auto insurance rates by 10.5% throughout the state, citing no-fault insurance fraud as the reason. The new rates took effect in January for new customers and February for renewal business. The company says it was forced to make the change to keep up with rising claims costs, driven primarily by New York's no-fault fraud.
"No-fault insurance fraud is driving car insurance rates in New York and is impacting the availability of affordable auto insurance products in the state,'' said Allstate spokesperson Maureen Sullivan. "There are solutions to the fraud problem that will harm no one but the perpetrators of fraud" such as stiffening criminal penalties for fraud and decertifying medical professionals convicted of insurance fraud.
New Jersey
New auto regulations offer speedier rate change process
The New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) has adopted an expedited process for considering private passenger automobile insurance rate changes. Spokesman for one of the groups that lobbied for the new regulation, American Insurance Association (AIA) Assistant Vice President John Andryszak said: "The DOBI must approve every rate change that an auto insurer makes, whether it is an increase or a decrease ... Some major companies have announced that they plan to leave the market and stop selling insurance in New Jersey because they have never gotten the approvals they need. Fewer companies selling auto insurance means fewer choices for consumers, which leads to an unhealthy market." AIA Assistant General Counsel David Snyder said, "We hope this new rule is implemented by the DOBI as it was intended by the legislature to provide for prompt reviews."
Pennsylvania
State supreme court rules on lead paint exclusion
A unanimous Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled in December that a so-called "pollution exclusion" does not eliminate insurance coverage for alleged injuries from lead paint. The court noted that there were potential inconsistencies in the meaning of the pollution exclusion, which has been standard on commercial general liability (CGL) policies since the
mid-'80s. The court found that the exclusion was ambiguous and that its language must be interpreted in favor of the policyholder. The key ambiguity with regard to lead paint ingestion, the court ruled, arises from the pollution exclusion's denial of coverage for "bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants."
Attorneys give spin on medical malpractice
In a study released in February, the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association says that claims by doctors and hospitals that juries have been "out of control'' are not supported by either past or current data. In their report, "Juries and Jury Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Cases: Implications for Tort Reform in Pennsylvania,'' authors Neil Vidmar, Ph.D., and Russell M. Robinson, II, professor of law and professor of psychology at Duke University School of Law, state, "Injured patients frequently receive less than their economic losses.''
Rhode Island
New workers comp law enacted
Effective January 1, the portion of the state's Workers' Compensation Act that relates to corporate officers is amended. Under most circumstances, corporate officers are now considered employees. If a person was a corporate officer before January 1, 1999, that person remains an employee for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act unless he or she statutorily waived entitlement to workers compensation benefits. Anyone who was appointed a corporate officer between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, and was not previously an employee of that corporation will not be considered an employee unless he or she opted into the workers compensation system. If a person is appointed a corporate officer after January 1, 2002, then that person will be considered an employee for purposes of both jurisdiction and benefits. That person may still opt out of the system by filing a notice of claim of common law rights with the Department of Labor and Training.
New Hampshire
High court reverses call on Gorman case
In its January decision on Matarese v. New Hampshire Municipal Association Property-Liability Insurance Trust, the state Supreme Court overturned the standard adopted in the 1999 Gorman v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Co., which permitted claimants to collect both workers compensation and uninsured motorist coverage under their personal auto policies. *