Capitol vote won't guarantee lower auto insure rates

An array of groups allied to defend Michigan's "no-fault" system of auto insurance claims and payments for catastrophic injuries resulting from auto accidents has filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association.

This quasi-public entity calculates the projected costs of paying for catastrophic care and levies an annual fee against auto insurers -- which they pass along to us auto insurance buyers -- to cover them.

 

The line from the Coalition to Protect No Fault is that the MCCA is a secretive entity that wrongly claims to be exempt from Michigan's Freedom of Information Act.

 

This is all pertinent right now because the auto insurance industry is trying to convince the Michigan Legislature to revamp Michigan's system, in which the injured receive unlimited lifetime care. The insurers want a system where consumers can opt for lesser amounts of coverage.

The lawsuit is, to a great extent, about political framing. Make MCCA -- which is run by a board dominated by insurance execs -- look secretive and the Legislature will feel less interested in changing no-fault.

That's too complex. I think the salient points for Michigan voters are these:

1. From Bridge's November 2011 story on the issue: "(Insurance Institute of Michigan head Pete) Kuhnmuench acknowledged that there is no 'guarantee' of lower auto premiums for consumers if the legislation is enacted, but said the limits on health providers would save insurers 10 percent to 12 percent — savings that can be passed along to consumers." (emphasis added)

2. From the same story: “In the late 1990s, the MCCA had a surplus of $2.5 billion – more than enough to cover catastrophic claims. At the urging of then-Gov. John Engler, the MCCA board in 1998 — an election year — refunded $180 per vehicle toMichiganmotorists. The following year, again under pressure from Engler, the MCCA agreed to lower its surplus another $1.2 billion by reducing the amount motorists would pay into the fund over the next five years.”

If you look at MCCA documents, here and here, you can see what happened: Michigan once had plenty of money in reserve to cover claims. It returned to consumers a big chunk of the cash. Since then, as costs rise, so do fees to chase them.

Legislators have to know that their constituents are not up in arms over payments to badly injured drivers or vehicle passengers. No, the political energy on this issue is the cost of auto insurance itself. People think they have to pay too much to insure their vehicles.

But, if the insurance industry can't guarantee that its proposed reforms will lead to lower consumer prices, what's the Legislature's motivation to act at all?

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Chuck Fellows
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 8:38am
Campaign contributions, fundraisers and free lunches. And, of course, the claim that they are improving Michigan's business climate.
sadie
Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:53pm
Frankenmuth executive staff took 90 people on a trip to Greece which cost approximately 5 million dollars for one week - that equates to about 53K per person. In a proximate time span, they wrote OFIR asking to charge higher premiums, complaining they were not able to make a profit. In that same time span, they froze their employee’s pension plan and discontinued it going forward. The the executives take the board members and all spouses (board and executive wives) to exclusive resorts for an entire week, funded with policyholder money. After being pampered for a week, the annual board meeting is held wherein the board votes on executive pay and bonuses. At a minimum this practice has the perception of a clear conflict of interest if not a flat out buy off of board members. No wonder executives can build 12,000 sq foot retirement homes on million dollar lakefront plots in Bay Harbor. This is one of the reasons Michigan policyholders pay too much for insurance. The insurance companies are not going broke - executive greed and egregious behavior are the problem.