The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

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.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest