An Act Concerning Uninsured Motorist Coverage For Bodily Injury To A Named Insured Or Relative During The Theft Of A Motor Vehicle.
If enacted, the bill will modify statutory language relating to automobile liability insurance in the state. Specifically, it mandates that insurers cannot deny uninsured motorist coverage on the basis that the policyholder or a relative was injured in a situation where a vehicle owned by the insured was stolen. This change is expected to enhance protections for individuals against uninsured drivers and the accompanying financial impacts of not having insurance during such theft-related incidents. The new provisions are set to take effect on October 1, 2013, and will apply to claims arising thereafter.
SB00236 is an act concerning uninsured motorist coverage specifically for bodily injury to a named insured or a relative occurring during the theft of a motor vehicle. The bill amends the existing law regarding uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, ensuring that if an individual or a relative is struck as a pedestrian by a vehicle owned by the named insured during its theft, they are still entitled to some degree of coverage regardless of the usual exclusions. This measure was introduced to address potential gaps in coverage that could adversely affect policies and provide additional protections for individuals affected by such incidents.
The general sentiment surrounding SB00236 appears to be supportive among advocacy groups focused on consumer protection, as it aims to close a loophole that previously left certain individuals without coverage in specific theft scenarios. However, there may be some concerns among insurance providers regarding the implications this might have on their liability and the potential for increased claims. Overall, while many stakeholders see it as a necessary update to existing laws due to evolving circumstances surrounding vehicle theft and insurance needs, the discussions around the logistics of implementing such coverage may present challenges.
Notable points of contention in the discussion may revolve around the balance between expanding coverage for individuals and the implications for insurance premiums and provider liabilities. Insurance companies might argue that the bill could lead to unanticipated costs by requiring them to cover more claims, which could ultimately be reflected in higher premiums for consumers. Advocates for the bill counter that it is essential for protecting consumers who could otherwise be financially devastated by the actions of thieves or uninsured drivers, indicating that existing coverage models may not adequately address modern theft situations.