Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage

[summer2007]

I have uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage but I also have health care coverage.

I know that uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage coveres things like pain and suffering that regular health insurance does not cover.

But I'm wondering if it makes sense to have this coverage or not and wanted to see what others thought?

Thanks

Jim

 

[Peaceful_Warrior]

What state do you live in?

I know when I lived in CA I wouldn't drive without it... too many uninsured motorists, and the coverage also takes care of property damages and other things that aren't covered by health care.

If you have an expensive car and are concerned about repair/replacement if you get hit by an uninsured motorist, then strongly consider the coverage.

If you have a cheap car and good health benefits, might not be as relevant.

 

[CyclingInvestor]

Like all insurance products, it is priced to be profitable for the insurance companies.
If you can afford to self-insure, you should do so. I have lived in Los Angeles since
1979 and have never carried anything but liability insurance, even with a new car.

 

[OAG]

I have never carry UN insurance. Figure our personal insurance will cover us and anyone that has ridden with me has their own health insurance. I have, at times, not carried collision or comprehensive, but carry I do carry it now. I would drop the Uninsured and Under-insured components and raise the Liability limits especially if you have significant assets. Higher liability levels are also required for home and auto insurance if you wanted to get a Umbrella Liability Policy.

 

[Martha]

I am a firm believer in underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage. Your health insurance isn't going to replace your income if you can't work due to an accident. Health insurance won't pay for a nursing home if you are seriously injured. Health insurance won't pay for someone to come into your home and help out while you are recovering. What if your child is hurt and you have to take a leave from work to care for your child? Or your spouse?

When I worked in a law firm I saw up close how important this coverage can be.

 

[Fireup2020]

I am in the midst of reviewing my auto insurance, and it makes no sense! Car is paid off, and I am unsure how far above the minimum state guidelines I should get. No children or spouse to take leave from work for. I have my health insurance paying my bills now in the event of an accident. (cheap car and good health benefits) $1000 deductible now. Rental car coverage is currently included.

 

[Martha]

Can you afford to be without work for a long period of time while you recover from an accident? What if you needed someone to help care for you? Or needed a handicap van? Or modifications made to your home after an accident? Are you rich enough to self insure?

I have a single lawyer friend who as a pedestrian was hit by a truck--a hit and run. She was out of work for nearly a year. Her uninsured motorist coverage made a world of a difference to her.

 

[armor99]

This might be slightly off topic, but I felt the need to mention this. Uninsured drivers are currently a blight on America. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter have to pay higher rates and be responisible, so that others can be more irresponsible? I currently did some research, and the insurance industry estimates 1/3 of drivers in Arizona (the state I live in) to be driving without insurance of any kind. I find this to be completely unacceptable! But what should be done about this? I would propose the following two laws to be put into effect.

1. If an uninsured motorist gets into an accident with an insured motorist. Then it is always and automatically considered the uninsured motorists fault.

2. If the uninsured motorist cannot pay the insured mototist for the damage caused, then the uninsured motorist's car will be taken as payment.

I hope I do not get "flammed" too badly over this, but I have seen it happen too many times where someone with no insurance and no responsibility destroy other peoples property, with no consequences attached.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Just to expand on armor99's post, it is not only uninsured motorists, but also underinsured motorists who present a problem. I am aghast at how many states allow motorists to legally drive with only 20K of liability insurance. What are the states thinking?

 

[trirod]

Uninsured drivers are currently a blight on America. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter have to pay higher rates and be responisible, so that others can be more irresponsible? .

I couldn't agree more. In Ohio, when I go to renew my car's annual registration I need to sign a declaration that I have insurance - like that's going to stop anybody! They should make you show proof of insurance when you renew your registration - that should make a huge difference.

 

[walkinwood]

From an online source, a definition for uninsured motorist insurance: An automobile policy option which covers one for property damage and bodily injury caused by another motorist who does not carry liability insurance.

So, if you get hit by an uninsured motorist, your own health insurance does not cover you? I didn't know this.

 

[Cbear1883]

A few points...and keep in mind that I'm an insurance agent, and I deal with insured's all day long so I've seen/heard a lot...

This might be slightly off topic, but I felt the need to mention this. Uninsured drivers are currently a blight on America. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter have to pay higher rates and be responisible, so that others can be more irresponsible?

You aren't required to carry uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage, at least not everywhere (I live in PA) Here, you have the option to reject it, or if you want to carry it, you do so for your own benefit, just like all the other coverage, and therefore you pay for it.

1. If an uninsured motorist gets into an accident with an insured motorist. Then it is always and automatically considered the uninsured motorists fault.

Oh yeah that's a BRILLIANT idea...Just because a person is uninsured, doesn't mean they should be responsible for accidents which are other people's fault too...that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and I hope I misunderstood...

2. If the uninsured motorist cannot pay the insured mototist for the damage caused, then the uninsured motorist's car will be taken as payment.

Please keep in mind that many people don't have insurance because they can't PAY for insurance. They can't afford it, just like healthcare insurance. And do you know why? Because everybody want's to SUE everybody else. Because lawyers are chasing ambulances and because jury's are dumb enough to set a precedent by which ALL OTHER CASES will be determined. Because I recently saw a woman get awarded 75k because she couldn't have sex with her husband for a few months.

Do I think it's right that they don't buy it when they're supposed to? NO. Do I think that blood can be extracted from a stone? NO. There's a reason your two "laws" aren't laws. Because they're counterproductive. Do you REALLY think that by taking away one of the only assets a person may have (AND BTW may be their ONLY means to get to their job, again, counterproductive) is going to HELP matters? Then you're just stuck with an uninsured, UNEMPLOYED person. There is really no upside to punishing people who are already in a disadvantaged situation. I know it's not right, but unfortunately not everyone can afford the best coverage available... which leads me to:

Just to expand on armor99's post, it is not only uninsured motorists, but also underinsured motorists who present a problem. I am aghast at how many states allow motorists to legally drive with only 20K of liability insurance. What are the states thinking?

They're thinking at least the people who may not be able to afford the best coverage will be able to at least buy SOME coverage.

Please keep in mind that I know this is not ALWAYS the situation, and that some people do it just because they can, but it sometimes IS the situation, and I think sometimes those of us in a better financial situation (which I'm assuming most of us are considering we're on this site) have a tendency to assume the worst.
I see things from both sides because I'm an insurance agent AND obviously I also have insurance as an individual. Just my .02, you may continue complaining...

 

[Cbear1883]

From an online source, a definition for uninsured motorist insurance: An automobile policy option which covers one for property damage and bodily injury caused by another motorist who does not carry liability insurance.

So, if you get hit by an uninsured motorist, your own health insurance does not cover you? I didn't know this.

It should cover you, but obviously you want to have any available auto coverage pay first so you can avoid out of pocket deductibles/copayments, etc. Here in PA, all injuries incurred in an accident are covered FIRST by your OWN first party benefits (the medical coverage on your policy). The other person is responsible for ALL other out of pocket expenses, medical and otherwise, incurred by you if they are at fault for the accident. THEN you can sue above that for your pain and suffering IF you have the "full tort" option (or, in some cases, even under the limited tort option if the injuries are permanently debilitating, but that's decided by a jury). It really depends on where you live. I know it varies greatly.

 

[pfpelican]

1. If an uninsured motorist gets into an accident with an insured motorist. Then it is always and automatically considered the uninsured motorists fault.

2. If the uninsured motorist cannot pay the insured mototist for the damage caused, then the uninsured motorist's car will be taken as payment.

Except, I don't believe most uninsured motorists stay around for the reckoning. Your uninsured motorist insurance covers you when you're the only one left, I believe.

Also, it's common in TX to sell insurance just for the period that a license application or inspection renewal is in progress. It's advertised as "making you legal". Then the insurance is cancelled....the result is a legal registration or inspection and an uninsured driver.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

They're thinking at least the people who may not be able to afford the best coverage will be able to at least buy SOME coverage.

While this may be true, some states have risk pools for drivers who can't get insurance from other carriers due to their past driving record. It seems to me that only requiring 20K (which barely covers the cost of damage to the other car, let alone a serious injury) of liability insurance for a driver who already has a bad driving record is crazy. Odds are that such a person is more likely to have a future accident, which is why the private carriers won't insure him. I just think the states should require him to carry a higher level of liability coverage. Too bad if it costs him more. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Cbear1883]

While this may be true, some states have risk pools for drivers who can't get insurance from other carriers due to their past driving record. It seems to me that only requiring 20K (which barely covers the cost of damage to the other car, let alone a serious injury) of liability insurance for a driver who already has a bad driving record is crazy. Odds are that such a person is more likely to have a future accident, which is why the private carriers won't insure him. I just think the states should require him to carry a higher level of liability coverage. Too bad if it costs him more. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Hey I'm not saying I agree with it, just offering an answer to your question. And once again, not all under or un insured motorists are bad drivers, sometimes 20k is just all they can afford. Also, I'm not sure about other states, but PA now bases a large part of your price on your credit score, so some people with high cost auto insurance could potentially have no accidents or violations and STILL have to pay a higher than average premium. So how do they make up for that? They lower their limits. It's not fair and I don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

And once again, not all under or un insured motorists are bad drivers

I would venture to say that those in the high risk pool are, by definition.

 

[Cbear1883]

I would venture to say that those in the high risk pool are, by definition.

Ok I think we have a miscommunication. I am not talking about high risk drivers (drivers prone to accidents). The entire thread is about uninsured and underinsured motorists. One does not automatically equal the other.

 

[Fireup2020]

I would venture to say that those in the high risk pool are, by definition.

Hey now, I was one of those financially strapped people with a lousy credit score, who maintained bare bones/minimal car insurance at one time - and my driving record was squeaky clean!! (Thank goodness those days are loooong gone!) I still consider myself a good driver

 

[Cbear1883]

Hey now, I was one of those financially strapped people with a lousy credit score, who maintained bare bones/minimal car insurance at one time - and my driving record was squeaky clean!! (Thank goodness those days are loooong gone!) I still consider myself a good driver

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's also why I dont think it's fair. I've seen some very decent people with perfect driving records end up with tripled insurance rates because one of them lost their job and before they knew it, they had to file bankruptcy (my in-laws included).

 

[Nords]

I am a firm believer in underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage. Your health insurance isn't going to replace your income if you can't work due to an accident. Health insurance won't pay for a nursing home if you are seriously injured. Health insurance won't pay for someone to come into your home and help out while you are recovering. What if your child is hurt and you have to take a leave from work to care for your child? Or your spouse?
When I worked in a law firm I saw up close how important this coverage can be.

Some people think that it would be a nightmare to be killed in an auto accident, but for me the bigger nightmare is surviving an auto accident.

We keep our UIM/UM coverage in case our daughter is so seriously injured that she'd need more lifetime care than our health insurance (TRICARE) will provide. I'm not talking about taking time off from work or months of physical therapy-- I'm talking about a lifetime of care providers to help cope with permanent brain- & body-damage.

I am in the midst of reviewing my auto insurance, and it makes no sense! Car is paid off, and I am unsure how far above the minimum state guidelines I should get. No children or spouse to take leave from work for. I have my health insurance paying my bills now in the event of an accident.

TRICARE (and our pensions) "should" cover my spouse and myself if we're disabled for life. The real difficulty is figuring out where an insurer is going to draw the line between disability and long-term care. Will TRICARE cover decades of assistance with activities of daily living caused by an UIM/UM accident? Dementia & Alzheimers could require 10-15 years of LTC. What about decades of paralysis or a coma? What about the financial impact on family, SOs, & friends if they have to care for us?

Can you afford to be without work for a long period of time while you recover from an accident? What if you needed someone to help care for you? Or needed a handicap van? Or modifications made to your home after an accident? Are you rich enough to self insure?

At some point, after our daughter is too old for us to insure on our auto or health policies, we'll have to decide whether it's worth continuing UIM/UM coverage for spouse & myself. I suspect that we'll decide in favor of being able to sleep at night, especially if the alternative could involve years of expensive legal haggling with one of the nation's largest health-care insurers. We should be able to self-insure for 10-15 years of LTC (considering that premiums may cost thousands of dollars a year) but UIM/UM is a lot cheaper for peace of mind for the rest of our lives.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Hey now, I was one of those financially strapped people with a lousy credit score, who maintained bare bones/minimal car insurance at one time - and my driving record was squeaky clean!! (Thank goodness those days are loooong gone!) I still consider myself a good driver

OK, but I'll bet you weren't in the state's high risk pool. This is the issue I am ranting about - the fact that states allow those in the high risk pool (i.e. those who have demonstrated that they are bad drivers) to drive with such a low level of liability insurance.

 

[Cbear1883]

OK, but I'll bet you weren't in the state's high risk pool. This is the issue I am ranting about - the fact that states allow those in the high risk pool (i.e. those who have demonstrated that they are bad drivers) to drive with such a low level of liability insurance.

Oh heck, in those cases I don't think they should be allowed to drive at ALL. There should be SOME cut off point besides when the insurance becomes so expensive that Bill Gates can't even afford it.

 

[Cbear1883]

but UIM/UM is a lot cheaper for peace of mind for the rest of our lives

Agreed. In PA you can also stack the coverage (multiply by the number of vehicles on the policy) for a slightly higher premium. If you carry the max, you're looking at 1 million + in some cases.

 

[Fireup2020]

OK, but I'll bet you weren't in the state's high risk pool. This is the issue I am ranting about - the fact that states allow those in the high risk pool (i.e. those who have demonstrated that they are bad drivers) to drive with such a low level of liability insurance.

Quite the contrary, I was under 25. (would have been more $$$$ if I were male) Was not cheap! Cheapest I could find was $200/mo for a '78 Pinto!!! (this was 89-93) GACK! These days I pay less than $500 per year for much more insurance for a 2000 Stratus