St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - Insurance Research Council

Insurance Study Suggests That Lawyers Make a Difference

Mike Bryant — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:41:00 GMT

Recently, I discussed the "independent" study that was put together by the Insurance Research Council and touted by the Minnesota Insurance Federation . What is interesting is that items they seem to be spinning in a negative light, may be a great reason for the average Minnesota consumer to take a closer look.

As part of the presentation of the study, they found that between 1997 and 2007, only 23-28% of Minnesotans hired an attorney to help with their no fault benefits. Nationally, during the same time, the percentage was 28-31%. Those who hired attorneys received three times as many benefits.

The study then points out that claims with attorneys are open longer. Which makes sense, because an attorney who understands the law will make sure that No Fault pays what it should. If the Insurance company denies, delays and defends someone will be on the insured side.

No fault benefits involve a number of protections. It's important if you are in a motor vehicle accident that you talk to someone who understands what your rights are. Missing from the study, is the reality that the insurance companies virtually have an attorney on every case. You need someone on your side.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Insurance Study Suggests Minnesota Liability Premiums Lower Than National Average

Mike Bryant — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:11:00 GMT

Recently, I discussed the "independent" study that was put together by the Insurance Research Council and touted by the Minnesota Insurance Federation . The study's impact according to press releases was to show that Minnesota has a problem with it's no fault system. But on closer look, the numbers used show that Minnesotans pay less than the national average for liability coverage.

At the same time, we have one of the best systems for coverage's. The mandatory underinsured and uninsured coverages help people protect themselves when they are in an accident with a car that has no or not enough coverage. The 30,000 liability limits take care of many smaller cases. Finally, the Minnesota no fault system, which the study seems intended to attack, provides for wage loss, medical coverage, medical mileage and replacement services at one of the most important times for a injured person.

A comparison is then made to the neighbor states of Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota and North Dakota. At best, it's comparing apples to oranges. Each of those states provide for less benefits and have substantially less drivers. There really is no surprise in that result.

While some of the benefits should be looked at because they haven't been increased in over 30 years. The system is one that works and is far more valuable for the injured person than most systems set up in other states.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

New "Independent" Insurance Study On Minnesota No Fault Should Be Closely Reviewed

Mike Bryant — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:43:00 GMT

This past week, the Minnesota Insurance Federation has been touting the findings of a study on Minnesota No Fault from the Insurance Research Council. They claim the research is from an independent group. A quick internet search of the council finds that this group describes themselves as supported by leading property and casualty insurance companies and associations. A look at their members include :

Allstate Insurance Company

American Family Insurance Group

Farmers Insurance Group

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

Liberty Mutual Group

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)

Property Casualty Insurance Association of American (PCI)

Safeco Insurance Companies

State Farm Insurance Companies

United Services Automobile Association

It's doubtful that the research is as independent as the federation has claimed.

On closer look, it seems that this group has been doing research in other states concerning no fault coverage. In each case, the study seems to come up with only negative information. This could be just a coincidence, or more of a sign of what conclusions they and their members are really looking for.

Reviewing the states they did look at. Florida lost no fault for a short time due to a sunsetting clause. Due to the disruption that was caused, the Florida legislature and Governor went into an emergency session to bring it back. Colorado significantly changed it's system a couple of years ago and the consumers seem to be increasingly complaining about the reduction in benefits.

At the very heart of the latest study is an attack on the Minnesota No Fault system. The research is based on a review of 500 cases. As of yet, they do not seemed to have disclosed why they used this number or where they got the 500 cases from. Did they come from different companies or a group of them? Did they look at cases that were arbitrated? Did they compare the time frame of is the claim was in it's early stages or had been going on for a while?

According to the American Arbitration Association in Minnesota there were 4986 No fault arbitration filings in 2006 and 4870 in 2007. Of those filing the claimant won everything requested 11% of the time in 2006 and 9% of the time in 2007. The average claim was 6547.00 in 2006 and 7224.48 in 2007. The average award was 4634.00 in 2006 and 5311.66 in 2007. Seems to me these numbers better reflect what is going on vs. a small subset that may have come from companies that regularly delay, deny and defend every claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant