Doing The Right Thing

Readers of this column may recall my affinity for locally owned book stores. I love shopping at and spending time in them; of course I love the products and the service and it makes me very happy to know that I am supporting a local merchant. Even as I’ve become a reader of digital books on my tablet, I still seek out those stores and patronize them as often as I can. Big box stores that move into communities don’t have the same character, nor do they care about the neighborhoods in which they are located. They just come in, put the local merchants out of business and never contribute to the community once they’re there.

We hear from politicians over and over how small businesses are so important to our economy. But, when it comes time to take action to protect them, that supportive rhetoric can suddenly disappear. Such is the case with legislation PIANY has been advocating for several years now. In a few cases, however, both the New York State Senate and Assembly did the right thing this past session—for example, they both passed a bill (S.6285-A/A.9034B) that would have prohibited state agencies from disseminating ads to the public for products or services related to the authority of the state agency. This bill would have prevented big insurance carriers (such as GEICO or State Farm) or any entity with an inappropriate relationship to the industry from putting advertisements alongside vehicle registration renewals. This practice puts small businesses in New York trying to compete with large national direct writers at a huge disadvantage. Just like the small, local bookstores, independent agents can’t compete with billion-dollar advertising budgets on a level playing field. The situation gets much worse when state agencies are involved.

It looks as if the state is endorsing these businesses. New York’s endorsement should not be for sale. In a state that has compulsory auto insurance, if you receive a flier in the same envelope as your renewal for auto registration from the DMV, it looks like the state is endorsing the insurance company. But, for the second year in a row, Gov. Cuomo vetoed the bill (S.6285- A/A.9034B).

I believe there are limits to how the state can or should fulfill its mismanaged budget. It should not be at the expense of an industry that supports New York State through taxes and agents who are upstanding members of their communities. GEICO and State Farm are not even domiciled in New York! This is ludicrous— the state’s endorsement shouldn’t be for sale. Any practice that implies the public should purchase a product from a particular source in order to register their website is just wrong—and the state isn’t just allowing it, they’re endorsing it! If you’re feeling angry, stop reading, because you are in for more disappointment. There’s another consumer-conscious bill awaiting the governor’s signature, but as I write this column, it is rumored to face a similar fate.

This bill, A.10784/S.7787, would increase supplementary insurance limits and require all auto policies to have supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage in the same amount as the bodily injury limits on the policy, unless the policyholder rejects the coverage. As members of the insurance industry, it’s beyond me why any of us would not support this bill. Supplementary Uninsured/ Underinsured Motorists coverage pays what you would have been able to collect from the motorist(s) responsible for the injuries you suffer in an automobile accident. Higher SUM gives motorists better financial security and will pay damages that exceed the amount received from atfault motorists and/or their insurance companies.

This is important when the driver that hits you only has the minimum coverage of $25,000, if he doesn’t have coverage or flees the scene. Let’s assume you purchased a person SUM limit of $100,000 on your policy, and you were injured by a motorist having a minimum-limit liability policy, making $25,000 the most you could collect for your injuries. If your damages are $60,000, then you could collect $25,000 from the motorist at fault and $35,000 under SUM coverage from your insurance company. If the negligent motorist had no insurance, then your SUM coverage would pay all $60,000 in damages. Had your damages been higher, an additional $40,000 would have been available before using up your entire SUM limit.

If the bill is signed, consumers will automatically receive SUM protection in the same amount they choose for their own bodily injury coverage. If a consumer purchases bodily injury coverage of $100,000 to protect them if sued for negligence, that consumer will receive the same $100,000 coverage if they are injured in a motor vehicle accident. And, the consumer can always opt out of this coverage if they choose, as well.

In my early years, when SUM coverage had first became available, the son of the owner of one of my business accounts had just graduated from law school. He was still on his mother’s policy and she had 250/500 to qualify for an umbrella. The son was rear-ended by someone with 10- 20-5 and because we had not slated the SUM coverage to increase until the policy renewed, we were almost sued. While my story may not be compelling to the governor, stories from papers around the state should. These have recounted how accident victims, through no fault of their own, have been left penniless because they were hit by a motorist with inadequate coverage. I hope the governor has seen these articles and does the right thing this time around. I hear sometimes from producers who say they are glad PIA and other associations are taking up these issues. Their work is important—because they continue to fight on our behalf on issues like these, despite repeated vetoes and other hurdles. But it’s frustrating to hear an agent or broker say they appreciate the work of our associations, but they don’t contribute as members, nor do they volunteer or donate to their respective PACs. Common sense says our strength lies in our numbers—the bigger our voices, the more effective they are.