Motorist insurance is a tricky thing.  One component that was traditionally ignored, neglected or misunderstood is Underinsurance or Supplemental Uninsured Motorist (“SUM”) coverage. This coverage is designed to “supplement” or add to the insurance coverage of the party who negligently causes your injury (or an injury of someone living in your household or riding in your car). The problem was that before June 18, 2018, drivers needed to actively purchase additional SUM coverage. For example, if Mr. Smith suffered a life-altering injury due to the carelessness of Mr. Jones and Mr. Jones only had $25,000 in bodily injury liability coverage, and Mr. Smith’s own policy contained $300,000 of SUM coverage, he conceivably would be able to collect $25,000 from the Jones policy and an additional $275,000 from his own policy (that is, $300,000 minus a credit for the $25,000 he already received). On the other hand, if Mr. Smith did not have additional SUM coverage, all he would recover is the $25,000 from Mr. Jones even if his own policy contained $300,000 in bodily injury liability coverage, to protect strangers. In fact, many people unwittingly drove around with bodily injury liability limits of $250,000 or more (at great expense) to protect strangers who they might hurt, without having additional SUM coverage to which protect themselves and their families (and which is relatively inexpensive).

About 15 percent of drivers do not have the legally required coverage. The unfortunate outcome for many drivers has been unexpected, exorbitant medical bills because they didn’t know supplemental coverage existed, or were unaware of their ability to purchase it and the modest price (about $33 a year for the lowest SUM coverage to about $135 a year for much higher coverage according to one car insurance company).

Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently signed a bill (A8519/S5644) that requires insurance companies to make available SUM coverage at the same level as bodily injury limits and removes caps related to such coverage. The law, which took effect on June 18, 2018, requires insurers to notify customers at least once a year about the availability of such coverage, explain what it is and encourage them to consider it.

Drivers who do not want to pay for it can sign a waiver to decline it or pay for a reduced amount of SUM coverage. Because drivers have an option to opt out, this is not a new, unsupported expense being forced on New Yorkers. Since drivers will pay for SUM coverage through their premiums, it’s not a new unfunded mandate on insurance companies. Rather, this is a sensible reform that provides individuals (who have been harmed through no fault of their own) and families a better chance to meet what can be severe medical costs. The physical and emotional toll an accident takes on an individual cannot be reversed.  Thanks to this legislation, the deck is now a little less stacked against victims.

Research by Alex Eidman

As is often the case in politics, a popular policy does not necessarily translate to successful passage. This trend is currently playing out in New York State with the Child Victims Act, a bill that would give sex abuse victims more time to file criminal charges and civil lawsuits.

New Yorkers overwhelmingly favor passing the bill, but Republicans declined to include it in this year’s budget. Those against it include the Catholic Church, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and the American Insurance Association (AIA), which has spent $130,000 lobbying against the bill.

Currently a victim of childhood sex abuse in New York has until age 23 to sue his/her attacker. The statute of limitations is even shorter when a suit targets an institution — like a school or church — where the abuse took place. In that case, survivors can’t sue after they turn 21.

Criminal offenses like rape, aggravated sexual abuse, or sexual conduct against a child can be prosecuted at any time. However, the abuse often doesn’t fall within these limited categories, in which case the victim is forced to press criminal charges before they turn 23.

The proposed Child Victims Act would amend the law as follows:

• Survivors could file a civil lawsuit until they turn 50;
• Survivors could file criminal charges until they turn 28; and
• There would be a one-year window during which cases from any time could proceed in court.

Of particular concern for those against the bill is the provision of a one-year “lookback” period that allows victims to file lawsuits that were previously forbidden by the old statute of limitations.

All of this strikes me as a staggering admission of guilt by the Church and UFT. The insurance industry has unsurprisingly decided that profit margins are more important than people who have suffered irreparable harm.

There are many reasons victims do not come forward for years to report what happened to them. They are often dealing with severe psychological trauma, which sometimes goes untreated. Instead of punishing them with a restrictive time window, Albany needs to empower them by passing this bill.

I can only hope that the legislature realizes that the time for playing politics is over, and moves to pass this bill provide some small measure of justice to innocent children who have suffered unspeakable horrors.

Research by Alex Eidman