NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
| SPONSOR: | Thompson | DATE TYPED: | 02/18/01 | HB | 695 | ||
| SHORT TITLE: | Uninsured Motorist Insurance Exclusions | SB | |||||
| ANALYST: | Wilson | ||||||
| Recurring
or Non-Rec |
Fund
Affected | ||||
| FY01 | FY02 | FY01 | FY02 | ||
| NFI | |||||
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Public Regulation Commission (PRC)
Duplicates SB 230
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
HB 695 allows coverage for punitive damages to be excluded from uninsured motorist coverage.
Significant Issues
Currently uninsured motorist coverage protects an insured against damage caused by an uninsured motorist. The PRC claims that if the insured's insurance company is required to pay for punitive damages rather than the individual who caused the damages, it will cause insurance premiums to rise. In addition the individual who incurred the punitive damages will not be punished.
On the other hand, if HB 695 passes, an insured may not be able to collect punitive damages from the uninsured motorist.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
Automobile insurers will have to refile coverage forms.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
If HB 695 passes would the consumer have a choice of whether or not to elect to be insured for punitive damages under uninsured motorist coverage or would the insurance companies be able to simply not offer it?
DW/njw:ar