Enacts the Omnibus Premium Reduction Act of 2019 (RE INCREASE GF EX See Note)
The bill's provisions also focus on the recoverability of medical expenses in civil cases. It stipulates that expenses reduced by insurance companies or Medicare will not be counted as collateral sources in litigation, limiting a plaintiff's recovery to only the amounts actually paid to healthcare providers. This could reduce insurance payouts and impact the financial landscape for many individuals claiming damages, as they would receive less than they might expect under current laws. Additionally, the bill requires motor vehicle insurers to file rate adjustments annually, promoting accountability in the insurance market and potentially leading to lower insurance premiums in the long run.
House Bill 372, also known as the Omnibus Premium Reduction Act of 2019, aims to address motor vehicle insurance costs by introducing several significant changes to existing civil law and insurance policies. The bill seeks to extend the prescriptive period for delictual actions from one year to two years, thereby allowing more time for injured parties to file claims. Moreover, it lowers the threshold for accessing a jury trial from $50,000 to $5,000, which could increase the number of cases eligible for jury trials in Louisiana, potentially affecting the judicial landscape significantly.
The sentiment surrounding HB 372 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that the bill benefits consumers by making insurance more affordable and accessible, and that it addresses unjust practices in how medical expenses are counted in legal settings. Conversely, critics warn that limiting recoverable damages and reducing the direct actions against insurers could hurt injured parties, making it more difficult for them to obtain fair compensation for damages sustained in accidents. This dichotomy reflects a broader tension in legislative discussions between consumer protection and the interests of insurance companies.
Notable points of contention include the reduction of the jury trial threshold and the implications of limiting recoverable medical expenses. Critics argue that lowering the threshold could lead to an influx of cases in courts, overwhelming the system and potentially delaying justice for those with higher claims. Moreover, the repeal of the right to direct action against an insurer may leave plaintiffs in a position where they are unable to effectively pursue justice if their insured party cannot fulfill their obligations. This change raises concerns about equity in the legal process and the adequacy of protections for consumers.