If you are involved in a motor vehicle collision, you expect the police to respond, investigate and file a report. Did you know though that you’re supposed to file a crash report with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV)? The crash report completed by the investigating police agency stays with that agency. Even if it’s the Ohio Highway Patrol. In the vast majority of cases, people do not file a crash report with the BMV and in most cases it makes no difference in how the claim is ultimately handled. In some cases, however, it can make a difference. When you file a BMV crash report, you are required to provide the BMV with proof of liability insurance. The BMV will then contact the driver of the other vehicle to complete a report and require them to provide proof of insurance. If the other driver does not respond or the other driver cannot provide proof of insurance, the BMV will suspend their license.

The BMV will send the request for this information to the address listed on a driver’s BMV issued license. If you’re involved in a collision with a driver who cannot provide adequate insurance information to the investigating police agency, it may be advantageous to file a BMV crash report because this will force the other driver to provide legitimate insurance information to the BMV or admit they have no insurance and face a suspension of their BMV issued driver’s license. It would also be advantageous to file a BMV crash report, if the other driver cannot provide adequate insurance, so that you can prove to your insurance company that you have done everything necessary and possible in order to determine the insurance coverage of the other driver. This may be necessary to obtain coverage under the uninsured motorist coverage in your policy.

You may recall the last time you renewed your license plates that you signed a form in which you declared that you had financial responsibility (insurance). A driver reporting a collision to the BMV is one way the BMV enforces the requirement to carry insurance.

Additionally, this process is one reason why it’s important to keep the BMV apprised of your current address. They will send their notification of a need for you to supply them with information to the address on your BMV issued driver’s license. If they send a letter to this address and it comes back to them, then there is no response from you and they will suspend your license. You, at that point, would have no knowledge of the event until the next time you needed your driver’s license in some official capacity, like a traffic stop or a renewal. Then you would find out that it is suspended, which could lead to your arrest.

Having an understanding of the procedure for making a law can make it easier for citizens to be more active in their government.

Anyone can come up with an idea for a law but it requires the sponsorship of a congressperson to give it wings. While this initial idea may have one or more sponsors such as voters, a committee of civilians, a special interest group, a lobbyist or a member of the legislature, it is a member of Congress, either a Senator or House of Representatives member who is tasked with writing a draft of the proposed law called a bill. After the Congress member has drafted the bill, he/she becomes the official sponsor and can introduce it for consideration. Only the members of Congress can actively introduce bills.

Once introduced, the bill is sent to a House or Senate committee for review depending upon who initially sponsored it. Both the House and Senate have many different committees that cover a wide variety of issues ranging from tax law to the military. The bill goes to the appropriately related committee where they discuss and study it. The committee may decide to table it, which means it doesn’t go any further, or send it back with recommendations for changes or with no changes to be voted on. At this point the bill is debated, modified, and voted on, if recommended by the committee. The bill requires a majority vote to pass then it is sent to the other branch of Congress where the process is repeated. The process can move smooth and quickly or meticulous and slowly.

If both the House and Senate approve the bill, it is sent to the President for signing. The President has several choices. He can sign the bill and it immediately becomes a new law or he can do nothing and the bill automatically becomes a law after 10 days. He can also choose to veto the bill, which means the bill doesn’t get his approval and does not become law. However, a veto can be overturned if two-thirds of both houses of Congress support the bill.

The process for making a law in the State of Ohio is very similar. The State of Ohio has a House of Representatives with 99 Representatives and a Senate with 33 Senators. The Governor is the one who ultimately signs or vetos a bill at the state level.

Tort – a private or civil wrong or injury. A wrong independent of contract. A violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all persons occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a given transaction. (Black’s dictionary)

A civil wrong, or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. (In plain English)

Tortfeasor – a wrong-doer; one who commits or is guilty of a tort.

Plaintiff – a person who brings an action; the party who complains or sues in a personal action and is so named on the record.

Defendant – the person defending or denying; the party against whom relief or recovery is sought in an action or suit. A person summoned to answer a charge or complaint in an action or suit.

Liability (liable) – bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; chargeable; answerable; compellable to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution. Condition of being bound to respond because a wrong has occurred.

Proximate cause – that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

Immunity – Exemption, as from serving in an office, or performing duties which the law generally requires other citizens to perform. Exemption from legal prosecution, often granted a witness in exchange for self-incriminating testimony. Exemption from legal prosecution, often granted a witness in exchange for self-incriminating testimony.

Mark Willis just returned from his second trip to Africa on December 15, 2010. Mark is a member of Bonyo’s Kenya Mission (www.bonyoskenyamission.org). Bonyo’s Kenya Mission is dedicated to the improvement of healthcare and life in general in the rural village of Masara in the Nyanza Province of western Kenya. Bonyo’s Kenya mission owns and operates the Mama Pilista Memorial Health Clinic in the village of Masara. Fundraising by Bonyo’s Kenya Mission provides a skeletal staff to provide for the daily healthcare needs of the area. Each year however, Bonyo’s Kenya Mission in conjunction with Share Kenya, a cooperative effort between Northeastern Ohio Universities, Colleges of Medicine, Ohio University College of Medicine, Ohio Northern University, Rocky Vista College of Osteopathic Medicine, Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Akron Children’s Hospital and Summa Health System converge on the clinic to provide more comprehensive medical care and on a larger scale. This year’s mission consisted of 30 some medical and pharmacy students along with physicians, nurses and others in the medical field. Mark Willis served as the chief operating officer for the mission to coordinate the patient’s care among the various disciplines represented by the group. The group treated over 2,400 different patients. Several were seen multiple times for follow up visits throughout the trip.

In addition to the general medical coverage, the mission ran an eye clinic with donated eyeglasses. Mark Willis made arrangements for ophthalmology coverage through Tenwek Hospital, a faith based hospital about 2.5 hours away in the Rift Valley Province of Kenya. Patients were screened for surgical issues including cataracts. The surgeries will take place at Tenwek Hospital in the near future. Other eye concerns were addressed through the ophthalmology coverage. The mission’s ophthalmology department was able to provide screening and eyeglasses for all who needed them. In addition to other medical issues, approximately 1,000 had sight issues that were addressed in the mission.

In addition to coordinating the various students and healthcare providers, Mark Willis coordinated with the 60 some interpreters hired by the mission to work with the U.S. healthcare workers and the patients. Most people in this area of Kenya speak the local Luo tribal language (Dholuo) or the east Africa dialect of Kiswahili. The clinic was broken down into various functions from registration and triage to intake screening, wound care, and general medical treatment. Our patients ran the gamut from pediatric to geriatric and required everything from emergency care to optical care and screening to lab tests and pharmacy services. Mark Willis used his training as a Fire Fighter EMT and his organizational abilities as a lawyer to pull the group together, staff the various departments and provide patients with quality healthcare.

Past Kenya Trip

The State of Ohio requires you to carry liability insurance in order to legally operate a motor vehicle. So in the land of good hands and good neighbors, critters and fancy commercials just what does your policy really provide? They all provide liability insurance as required by the state but that’s where the similarities end. Under Governor Taft’s administration the insurance industry was, in a sense, deregulated in Ohio. Protections required by law for you as the owner of the policy and your family members were removed. All policies start with some language to the effect that they will pay the legal liabilities you incur for operating a motor vehicle. The rest of the numerous pages of the policy are exceptions to this basic statement. They start by creating a “blanket of coverage” and then they punch holes in it. We now are seeing language in policies such as: there is no coverage for a bodily injury to any member of an insured family residing in the insured’s household. This creates a huge coverage hole for you and your family. It’s probably safe to say that the average person spends more time in the car with family members than they do anybody else. A family member is usually defined in policies as a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption and living in the same household. So, for example, a husband and wife and their children are traveling in a car. The husband/father is driving and they stop and pick up a hitchhiker along the road and continue on their way. The father doesn’t see a red light, drives through the intersection and is clobbered by a tractor-trailer seriously injuring everybody in the car. The policy you paid for may not cover the wife/mother and the children because of this exclusion.

The hitchhiker, however, is covered. That would be the end of the story with some carriers. No coverage for your family members, the people you paid to protect. Some carriers would provide coverage, some carriers have taken a piece meal approach to it and will tell you their policy doesn’t cover it but in this situation they’ll help you out. This means they know they really should be covering the claim but since they were able to hoodwink you on the policy, they’re only going to pay a portion of your damages. We suggest you ask your agent specifically if your automobile policy will cover family members in your car if you cause the collision.

We suggest you get the answer in writing because sometimes we find agents are uninformed about all the changes that the insurance companies have put into the policy. Unfortunately, we see tragic situations like the one discussed in this article all too often. Find out who you are really insuring with your policy.

What it will do this year:

Allowing States to Cover More People on Medicaid

States will be able to receive federal matching funds for covering some additional low-income individuals and families under Medicaid for whom federal funds were not previously available. This will make it easier for states that choose to do so to cover more of their residents.

Expanding Coverage for Early Retirees

Too often, Americans who retire without employer-sponsored insurance and before they are eligible for Medicare see their life savings disappear because of high rates in the individual market. To preserve employer coverage for early retirees until more affordable coverage is available through the new Exchanges by 2014, the new law creates a $5 billion program to provide needed financial help for employment-based plans to continue to provide valuable coverage to people who retire between the ages of 55 and 65, as well as their spouses and dependents. Applications for employers to participate in the program were available June 1, 2010.

Providing Access to Insurance for Uninsured Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions

A Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan will provide new coverage options to individuals who have been uninsured for at least six months because of a pre-existing condition. States have the option of running this new program in their state. If a state chooses not to do so, a plan will be established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in that state. This program serves as a bridge to 2014, when all discrimination against pre-existing conditions will be prohibited.

Extending Coverage for Young Adults

Under the new law, young adults will be allowed to stay on their parent’s plan until they are 26 years old. (In the case of existing group health plans, this right does not apply if the young adult is offered insurance at work.) Some insurers began implementing this practice early. Check with your insurance company or employer to see if you qualify. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for Unreasonable Rate Hikes

The law allows states that have, or plan to implement, measures that require insurance companies to justify their premium increases to be eligible for $250 million in new grants. Insurance companies with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance Exchanges in 2014.

Rebuilding the Primary Care Workforce

Starting this year to strengthen the availability of primary care, there are new incentives in the law to expand the number of primary care doctors, nurses and physician assistants, including funding for scholarships and loan repayments for primary care doctors and nurses working in underserved areas.

Strengthening Community Health Centers

The law includes new funding to support the construction of and expansion of services at community health centers, allowing these centers to serve some 20 million new patients across the country.

Payments for Rural Health Care Providers

Presently, 68% of medically underserved communities across the nation are in rural areas, and these communities often have trouble attracting and retaining medical professionals. The law provides increased payment to rural health care providers to help them continue to serve their communities.

Providing Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credits

Up to 4 million small businesses are eligible for tax credits to help them provide insurance benefits to their workers. The first phase of this provision provides a credit worth up to 35% of the employer’s contribution to the employees’ health insurance. Small non-profit organizations may receive up to a 25% credit.

Relief for Four Million Seniors Who Hit the Medicare Prescription Drug “Donut Hole”

An estimated 4 million seniors will reach the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the “donut hole” this year. Each such senior will receive a $250 rebate.

Cracking Down on Health Care Fraud

Current efforts to fight fraud have returned more than $2.5 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund in FY 2009 alone. The new law invests new resources and requires new screening procedures for health care providers to boost these efforts and reduce fraud and waste in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.

Providing Free Preventive Care

Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 – all new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance.

A new $15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund will invest in proven prevention and public health programs that can help keep Americans healthy – from smoking cessation to combating obesity.

Putting Information Online

The law provides for an easy-to-use website where consumers can compare health insurance coverage options and pick the coverage that works for them.

Prohibiting Insurance Companies from Rescinding Coverage

In the past, insurance companies could search for an error, or other technical mistake, on a customer’s application and use this error to deny payment for services when he or she got sick. The new law makes this illegal.

Appealing Insurance Company Decisions

The law provides consumers with a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims to their insurance company, and establishes an external review process.

Eliminating Lifetime Limits on Insurance Coverage

Under the new law, insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays.

Regulating Annual Limits on Insurance Coverage

Under the new law, insurance companies’ use of annual dollar limits on the amount of insurance coverage a patient may receive will be restricted for new plans in the individual market and all group plans.

As the law rolls into effect over the next four years, each year will have new provisions.

A referendum backed by the payday-lending industry was presented as Issue 5 on the ballot during the 2009 elections.

The payday lending industry sought to overturn the rate cap portion of House Bill 545, the payday lending reform law signed by Governor Strickland in June.

Among other reforms, House Bill 545 reduces interest rates payday lenders can charge from 391 percent annual interest to 28 percent.

A majority NO vote on Issue 5 would allow payday lenders to continue charging a 391 percent annual interest rate. The fee for a $300, two-week loan would be $45.

A majority YES vote on Issue 5 would reduce interest rate charges to 28 percent. The fee for a $300, two-week loan would be $18.

Consumer protection advocates say the high-interest and short repayment business model traps borrowers in a debt cycle, requiring them to take out new loans to pay off old ones. They support a YES vote on Issue 5.

Here are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding this issue:

What does House Bill 545 do?

The most important provision caps the annual

interest that lenders can charge at 28%, down from the 391% allowed under the old law.

What prompted the Ohio General Assembly to pass the reform package?

There was growing evidence that payday loans did not solve short-term financial problems for Ohio borrowers. Instead, payday loans caused long-term financial entrapment.

Because of the deception employed by many lenders, and the structure of the loans, customers often found themselves in a long-term cycle of repeat borrowing and constant debt.

How many people in Ohio use payday lenders?

More than 300,000 Ohio payday borrowers were trapped in an unending debt cycle last year, according to the Ohio Coalition for Responsible Lending.

Has Ohio always allowed 391% interest?

No. In 1995, the Ohio legislature gave the payday lending industry a special deal on a product that was described as a two-week loan used for the occasional emergency. The interest rate and fees needed to be higher, lenders argued, because it was just a two-week loan. So the product was exempted from the state’s usury and small loan laws and was allowed to charge fees and interests which usually amount to a 391% APR.

What impact did the 1995 change have on the payday loan industry in Ohio?

The 1995 law allowed lenders to create their own demand. Borrowers moved from payday lender to payday lender to keep their loans from defaulting. Feeding on this pool of trapped borrowers, the number of lenders skyrocketed, going from 100 payday loan storefronts in 1996, to more than 1,600 today.

If the reform law stays in place, will the payday lenders disappear from Ohio?

The reform law does not eliminate jobs or force payday lenders to close their doors. The bill simply prevents lenders from charging 391% APR. Multiple product lenders, such as pawnshops, check cashers and Rent-a-Centers will continue regular operations. According to the Ohio Department of Commerce, hundreds of payday lenders are taking the legal steps to continue operating under the new law, suggesting many think they still can make money in Ohio without trapping their clients.

The District of Columbia recently capped payday loan rates at 24%, where more people turned to credit unions that offer short-term loans at much lower rates than payday lenders, according to a July 26 report in the Washington Post.

Who wants to repeal the new law?

To date, the national payday lender trade association is the only donor supporting the repeal effort.

Do most people use the payday loan for an emergency, then get their financial house in order?

The typical payday borrower takes out 11 to 12 loans per year when accounting for multi-shop borrowing. Once borrowers begin the payday lending process, it’s often hard to close out the original loan, and they typically wind up involved in the product repeatedly for up 18 to 24 months.

An expert hired by the payday loan industry, Pat Cirillo of the Cypress Research Group, confirmed the statistic when she testified on behalf of the payday lending industry.

Rescission is the practice in which an insurance company cancels an insurance policy after a claim for benefits has been made. The insurance company then conducts what is called “post claims underwriting where the insurance application

is reviewed (often long after it has issued the policy) in order to find undisclosed or incorrect information, which it then uses as a reason to cancel the policy. This usually occurs when an expensive claim is made on the policy.

Legitimate reasons for rescinding a policy (may) include inaccurate or incomplete information, misleading, misrepresentation, omissions, failure to disclose a pre-existing medical condition, and lying or concealing information about your medical history.

Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of rescission where they investigate policyholders shortly after they have been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses.

In one particular instance in 2002 Jerome Mitchell, a 17 year old college freshman from South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. In his favour, he thought, he had health insurance. However, shortly after his diagnosis, his insurance carrier Fortis – now Assurant – cancelled his policy.

He was told that without treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would die within two years after that. At this, he took legal action and hired an attorney.

In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongfully revoking his policy. And in September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s verdict but reduced the amount to $10 million.

This win against Assurant, allowed Mitchell to not only get justice for himself but it helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Assurant. It took being sued before his insurance carrier would restore coverage, approximately 22 months later.

It was discovered that Assurant was targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm triggered an automatic fraud investigation for every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. In addition, for some time Assurant had been making recommendations for rescission and without good-faith investigation, acting on them. They had pre-programmed its computer to recognize the billing codes for expensive health conditions, which would trigger an automatic fraud investigation by its cost containment division whenever the code was recognized.

It was obvious that Assurant was focusing on claims that carried a high cost for treating the illnesses in question. But Don Hamm, the CEO of Assurant, defended the company stating that rescission is a necessary tool to hold the cost of premiums down for other policyholders and one of many protections supporting the affordability and viability of individual health insurance in the United States under our present system. But isn’t the purpose of health insurance to protect policyholders if they are or when they become ill so they can seek and receive the medical attention they need? The envelope has been pushed by insurance companies and they’ve come close to crossing legal boundaries, and in some cases have stepped over them, to prioritise profits over the care, rights, and interest of their customers. In doing so, they demonstrate a lack of regard for the health and safety of those of whom they are suppose to serve by, in some instances, gambling with their lives such as in the Mitchell case.

Hamm further stated that those who had their policies rescinded had attempted to intentionally mislead the company and that there are times when they discovered an applicant did not provide complete or accurate medical information when they underwrote the risk.

On the contrary, state, federal and congressional investigators and consumer advocates said that in only a small percentage of cases were there people who had their health insurance cancelled for a legitimate reason.

Based on an investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (as well as earlier ones) found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation’s largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone saved at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.

Recently, insurers have revoked policyholder’s policies for less serious medical conditions such as diabetes, depression, and high blood pressure because of the lifetime of care and bills that generally follow with treating these conditions.

Mitchell is one example of many who have won the battle against unlawful rescissions rendered by health insurance companies but there are still far too many others who have lost the battle because they didn’t fight, didn’t realize the had legal footing or lost their lives because they lost the only insurance that could help them fight for their lives.

For this reason, rescission proves to be a very serious issue. It is a growing concern primarily because insurance companies revoke policies for the very reasons policyholders need coverage – when they are sick and need health care. Insurers are comfortable with accepting payments in the form of premiums but do not want to cover their policyholders for the purpose they pay to be insured. They don’t want to spend money taking care of those they insure when they need healthcare coverage the most.

Sadly, there are still others (millions) who can’t get healthcare insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Who will cover them? How will they get the care they need to treat their conditions? To be continued….

We currently represent a client who was on his way to work in the morning and who stopped behind a school bus picking up children. Our client was rear-ended by a teenager traveling at a high rate of speed. The teenager’s car, which was destroyed, completely collapsed the rear end of our client’s vehicle, and forced it into the back of the school bus. Our client sustained spinal disc herniations ultimately requiring back surgery.

The teenager was only insured for a total liability limit of $25,000.00.

His carrier turned that over, leaving us with an underinsured motorist claim to pursue with our client’s insurance company. Fortunately, our client had underinsured motorist coverage on the day of the collision in an amount that would fully compensate him for his injuries. As part of the process of pursuing his claim, we requested that the claim be arbitrated with his insurance company pursuant to the terms of the policy. If done correctly, arbitration goes faster, costs the parties less, and spares the clients the emotional roller coaster, loss of earnings, and hard work involved in a trial.

The insurance company refused our call for arbitration and wanted to force our client to go to trial or else accept their low offer. They based their refusal on a recent “endorsement” they said they had filed with the Department of Ohio Insurance and claim they sent to him. Ohio law requires all endorsements for this type of policy to be filed and accepted by the Ohio Department of Insurance prior to being used by the company and sent to their insured.

We didn’t take their word for it. Instead, we went down to the Ohio Department of Insurance archives and combed through hundreds of filings and thousands of pages on computer and microfiche. Nowhere did we find the “endorsement” they said they had filed with the Ohio Department of Insurance.

At that point their story changed. They admitted they had never filed this particular “endorsement”, but argued they had filed one an awful lot like it and so argued they had complied with the law.

The insurance company also admitted this other “endorsement” was not a part of our client’s insurance policy. Yes, we had to go to court on this even with their admissions.

In court, both sides briefed the issue. On their side was a bizarre hope that the court would cross its eyes, blur these two documents together, and come up with a validly filed endorsement binding on our clients. On our side was the law. We argued that the plain language of the statutes in effect in Ohio since the 1950s required them to file this endorsement and that if they were seeking to impose the other endorsement on our clients, they should have included it in the policy.

Fortunately, the court agreed with us and ordered the case to arbitration. Unfortunately, the insurance company appealed and the case is presently before the 9th District Court of Appeals. Stay tuned.

The year was 1973. Some of the biggest hits on TV were Kojak, M.A.S.H., and The Waltons. Movie tickets cost $1.75 each. Gas was 40 cents a gallon, and a stamp was 8 cents.

Obviously, all those prices have gone up quite a bit in the last 37 years. But one very important number hasn’t budged since 1973: the state minimum insurance requirement in Ohio, which has been frozen at $12,500 per person. Insurance is meant to “cover” you, and there’s a reason one of the largest insurance companies, Travelers, chose an umbrella as their symbol. Insurance is meant to cover you in the event of a loss, but in Ohio this umbrella has been shrinking every year.

Now certainly, in the last several decades the amount of money you pay for insurance has gone up… and up… and up some more. But this absolute minimum protection has not changed despite the concerted efforts of consumer advocates in recent years.

A 1973 dollar is worth about $4.85 today. [So in the early ’70’s our state set the floor – the absolute minimum coverage needed to protect our citizens – at $12,500.00. Due to inflation, this has eroded to the equivalent buying power of about $2,500.00.] Just to keep pace with inflation, the state minimum limits should accordingly be at least $60,000.00. (This doesn’t even factor in the spiraling cost of medical care.) Drivers with state minimum limits tend to be younger, higher risk drivers. Higher risk drivers are those drivers that are the most likely to cause an accident injuring you or your loved ones. The current bill to finally fix this situation is House Bill 23 which is before the legislature in Columbus. The insurance industry is a powerful force, but legislators respond to their constituents. Email your state senator and representative and tell them to support increasing the state minimum auto limits. You can find your legislators at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/.

Bills have been introduced repeatedly over the last 10 to 15 years to raise those limits more in line with the rest of the country and with the reality of current prices. But the insurance industry fights this bill every time, claiming they will have to raise rates drastically to provide that level of coverage. Forgive us, but we think this is a pretty walleyed way of looking at things. As insurance consumers, we are constantly hit with increased rates most of which have nothing to do with our own claim history but have to do with increased cost of claims, etc. So the insurance companies get the benefit of increased premium dollars every year and yet this state minimum has not increased a penny in over three decades.

If the state minimum hasn’t changed, the question policyholders should be asking is where are the monies we pay in inflated premiums going? Insurance companies have raised premiums of their policyholders with out increasing their risk regarding the amount they might have to pay under the coverage.

The only way to protect yourself from this shrinking coverage is to make sure you and your loved ones are covered by uninsured/underinsured motorist limits much higher than the state minimum. As a rule of thumb, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is the most important insurance coverage to you and you should have as much as you can afford on your policy. Talk to your agent; you’d be surprised how affordable it can be to increase this vital protection.