As we all know, the Bush administration has made one
of it's key policy goals for the second term the
complete destruction of our system of consumer
protection and protection for those who have been
injured. The administration recently sponsored and
then signed legislation that has all but eliminated
the right to file a class action lawsuit in state
court. It has now set it's sights on "reforming" the
bankruptcy code, to make it virtually impossible for
those who have been victimized by the disaster that is
the Bush economy to seek any recourse by way of filing
personal bankruptcy.
Now, the Bush "tort reform" (ie anti-consumer /
pro-big business) agenda has landed squarely at the
Minnesota legislature. Republicans in the Senate
(with what appears unfortunitely to be the assistance
of some DFL-ers) have introduced two bills that if
passed would greatly weaken protection for individuals
injured in automobile accidents.
Currently, Minnesota has what is referred to as a
No-Fault system with respect to automobile accident
liability. The law says that those who have been
injured in automobile accidents, who have insurance of
their own, will have an automatic $20,000 worth of
coverage for "reasonable and necessary" medical
expenses, as well as an additional $20,000 worth of
coverage for wage loss and other "economic benefits."
These amounts are available regardless of whether the
injured person is at fault or not.
In situations where medical expenses are over $20,000,
the injured party would have to make a claim against
the at fault driver's insurance company. In
situations where the at fault driver's insurance
limits are too low to cover the amount of excess
damages or where the at fault driver has no insurance,
another system of "Underinsured" and "Uninsured"
motorist coverage is in place, where the injured
person's own insurance would then cover the excess
amounts.
In order to sue for "pain and suffering" (ie
non-economic) damages, an injured person must meet one
of four "tort thresholds." These thresholds include:
1) medical expenses exceeding $4,000, 2) permanent
disfigurement or injury, 3) death, or 4) disability of
60 days or more. If someone cannot prove that one of
these conditions have been met, they are not eligible
for any recovery whatsoever for "pain and suffering"
and will not be allowed to sue in court seeking
damages.
The current system works well because it ensures that
everyone who is injured, regardless of fault or
whether they have medical insurance, is eligible for
$20,000 worth of coverage for medical expenses. Also,
it ensures that the courts are not clogged up with
lawsuits and that people do not take advantage of the
system because it requires them to be injured badly
enough to meet one of the threshold amounts in order
to get anything from the other driver's liability
insurance.
Two bills have been introduced in the MN Senate that
would decimate this current system and eliminate these
relatively consumer friendly protections that are
currently in place.
S.F.970 would completely eliminate the No Fault law
and replace it with a system that would require
individuals to purchase liability insurance (insurance
to cover other people's injuries if the purchaser is
the cause of the accident). This is already the law
in Minnesota. It would then give a 20% reduction on
the amount of that policy.
However, the law would completely eliminate the
$20,000 worth of automatic coverage for medicals
through no-fault. One would have to seek compensation
from the at fault driver's insurance, but would have
to meet one of the tort thresholds to be eligible to
do so (more on bad changes to the tort threshold
below). All other expenses would be submitted to
regular medical insurance. This is of course is bad
news because of the fact that many individuals are
uninsured or have very high deductibles. Also, if you
are at fault, there is potential to have all coverage
denied outright. It would make what is as of now a
fairly non-adversarial process very adversarial, while
at the same time choking people off from access to the
court system.
S.F.1094 is even worse. It would basically eliminate
the current tort threshold and replace it with the
following language "no person shall recover damages
for noneconomic detriment (ie pain and suffering)
unless the injury results in serious permanent
impairment of an important bodily function or death."
In other words, unless you are dead or can prove that
you have suffered "serious permanent impairment of an
important bodily function", you don't get anything for
pain and suffering. This is clearly a much more
amorphous standard and much more difficult test to
meet than the $4,000 worth of medical expenses
standard that currently exists (which is the threshold
that is most often met in these cases). In other
words, many many situations where injured persons are
eligible to recover would simply no longer be included
and people would get nothing because they don't have
the type of injury that impacts an "important bodily
function". (For instance, it could be argued by the
insurance industry that back pain or joint pain or a
jaw injury are not "important bodily functions".)
The text of the bills (and proposed changes) can be
found at:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0970.0&session=ls84
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1094.0&session=ls84
It would come as no surprise that these bills have
heavy support from the insurance lobby (who are the
ones that would obviously primarily benefit). In
fact, three of these bills' authors are employed by
the insurance agency (Reiter - insurance agent; Michel
- Atty for MN Life Ins. Co.; LeClair - Insurance Co.
Exec.) The bills are opposed by consumer groups, the
medical and chiropractic lobby and the Minnesota Trial
Lawyers Association (MTLA) (DISCLAIMER time: I am a
plaintiff's PI attorney and a member of MTLA).
The bill is set for initial hearing before the
commerce committee on Wednesday, March 2 at 12:00
noon. There is a chance to kill these bills in
committee before they ever get to the floor, but there
needs to be significant input on the part of
constituents and consumer advocates to make it happen.
The following members are on the commerce committee:
Linda Scheid (chair) - DFL - Brooklyn Park (SD46)
Dan Sparks (Vice-Chair) - DFL - Austin (27)
Reiter (Ranking Minority) - Repub - Shoreview (53)
Ellen Anderson - DFL - St. Paul (66)
Belenger - Repub - Bloomington (40)
Gaither - Repub - Plymouth (43)
Kiscaden - Independent - Rochester (29)
Cal Larson - Repub - Furgus Falls (10)
LeClair - Repub - Woodbury (56)
Becky Loury - DFL - Kerrick (8)
Metzen - DFL - S. St. Paul (39)
Michel - Repub - Edina (41)
Pappas - DFL - St. Paul (65)
Pogemiller - DFL - NE Minneapolis (59)
Rest (Assist Majority leader) - DFL - New Hope (45)
Sams - DFL - Staples (11)
Contact info for the Senators can be found at:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/info/alpha.htm#header
Please write or call your senator today and oppose
these bills and the Bush anti-consumer / pro-big
business agenda. Again, these bills are going to
committee tomorrow, so immediate action would be very
beneficial.
Thanks,
Nathan Carmack, Attorney
Minneapolis, MN
collinsclerk@yahoo.com