Posted by Benji Riggins on September 29, 2009 under Safety | 
Parents beware: Giving in to teens’ demands for their own cars can have dangerous consequences, new research suggests.
Teenagers with their own cars or free use of one are much more likely to get in crashes than those who share a car. And crashes are much less common among teens whose parents set clear driving safety rules.
The findings are in two studies by researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and funded by State Farm Insurance Co. They are in the October issue of Pediatrics.
The researchers say the findings can help parents keep their kids from becoming a grim statistic: Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens, killing more than 5,000 each year.
Getting a driver’s license and car are often viewed as rite of passage for U.S. teens, and many parents underestimate the risks.
More than 7,000 people nationwide were killed in crashes involving teen drivers in 2007, government data show. More than 3,000 of these deaths were teen drivers, and more than 250,000 teen drivers were injured.
“With teen drivers, you have to recognize that it’s a public health issue,” said Dr. Jeffrey Weiss, a Phoenix pediatrician who co-wrote an American Academy of Pediatrics report on teen drivers.
The 2006 report encourages parents to highlight the seriousness of driving privileges by requiring teens to sign driving contracts promising to abide by safety rules.
The new research shows that kind of hands-on approach pays off.
“Families need to know that driving is different” from other steps toward independence,said Dr. Flaura Koplin Winston, the study’s lead author. “Just at the time their teen is pulling away, they need to get back involved to spare them heartache.”
The research is based on a nationally representative survey of more than 5,500 teens in grades nine through 11. Students at 68 high schools answered questionnaires in 2006.
More than 2,000 students who reported driving on their own were the focus of one study; 70 percent said they had their own cars or were the main drivers of cars they used.
Winston said it’s alarming that so many kids have their own cars or feel that they have free use of one. She said that freedom can lead to “a sense of entitlement about driving” that may make them less cautious.
Among these “main” drivers, 25 percent had been involved in crashes, versus just 10 percent of teens who shared driving access. Winston said the lower crash rate doesn’t reflect less driving time, but is likely due to having to ask for the car keys, which helps parents monitor their kids’ driving.
Compared with teens whose parents were uninvolved, kids who said their parents set clear rules and monitored their whereabouts without being overly controlling had half as many crashes and much better driving habits.
These teens were 71 percent less likely to drive while drunk and 30 percent less likely to use a cell phone while driving than kids with uninvolved parents.
Dr. Niranjan Karnik, a University of Chicago specialist in adolescent mental health, said the research underscores the importance of appropriate parenting and widely enacted graduated licensing laws for teens.
Debby Hendricks of Hatfield, Pa. made her daughters wait until age 17 to get their licenses, and gave them lots of driving practice beforehand.
The girls, aged 17 and 19, also share a family car, and can’t “just grab the keys and leave” without saying where they’re going and with whom, Hendricks said.
So far so good — neither girl has been in an accident, although the younger one, Leslie, has only had her license for a few months.
Leslie considers herself a safe driver, but adds, “I probably do underestimate the risks.”
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 25, 2009 under Flood |
On October 1, 2009, important changes to the NFIP will take effect. There will be an increase in rates, the standard deductibles, and the basic insurance limits. These combined changes will result in an average premium increase of 8 percent . Many policyholders will have questions about these changes. To help you best serve our clients, we have developed a number of “answers to possible questions” to help our customers better understand how these changes will affect them.
Q: Why are my premiums going up?
A: It is not uncommon for insurance companies to implement annual rate increases to help offset their increased costs, including inflation. The NFIP, like most insurance companies, has found it necessary to implement these important program changes to ensure that current premiums more accurately reflect the current risks.
Q: Are the rates increasing to collect the premium dollars that were used to pay for claims as a result of Hurricane Katrina?
A: No. It is a misconception that rate increases happen to offset debts attributed to Hurricane Katrina or any past event. Actually, Federal regulations clearly state that the NFIP cannot raise rates to recoup for previous losses. Simply put, NFIP premiums only reflect expected future losses and expenses. There is no charge contained in the premium to recoup past losses.
Q: Why is my deductible doubling?
A: The NFIP’s previous minimum deductibles were in place for more than 10 years. The NFIP found it necessary to discontinue the minimum deductible of $500 and increase the new standard deductibles to avoid overall larger premium increases.
It is important to remember, that in most cases the deductible is only a fraction of the average flood insurance claim, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Q: Why are the basic limits of coverage on the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) for residential and non-residential buildings increasing?
A: The NFIP takes many steps to financially prepare for future flooding. In order to do so, the basic limit of coverage, the level which sustains the most damage in a flood, needs to be brought into better alignment with the typical NFIP paid claim.
If you purchase flood insurance beyond the basic limit, you will receive more coverage at a lesser charge. And, to get full replacement cost for your primary residence in the event of a flood, you must insure your building to at least 80 percent of its replacement value (or $250,000, whichever is less).
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 21, 2009 under Insurance News, Uncategorized |
As more homeowners are having trouble selling their homes in today’s real estate market, some are thinking about becoming landlords.
A growing number of homeowners who need to relocate for a job or other reason are renting out their homes instead of selling them so they can wait until the market improves. At the same time, investors are taking advantage of low prices to buy rental properties.
Allstate has seen a 27 percent increase in the number of homeowners who switched their insurance policies to landlord policies, compared with year-ago figures. Travelers also said they’re seeing a similar increase. So is State Farm Insurance, but less so.
“When you become a landlord, your property goes from a residence to a place of business,” says Julie Parsons, vice president of consumer household at Allstate.
That requires a landlord insurance policy, which covers the property and the owner’s exposure if anyone gets hurt in it.
These policies typically cover the building in case it’s damaged or destroyed by fire, lightning, wind, hail, cars or collapse from ice, snow or sleet. they also cover the landlord’s personal property used by the tenant or used to maintain the house. This could include appliances and landscaping machinery like snow blowers and lawnmowers.
Landlord policies don’t include any protection against flooding or offer compensation for damage to renter property. And depending on the how extensive the coverage is, it might also exclude damage from sewer backup, earthquake, vandalism and theft.
Allstate’s average annual premium for a basic landlord policy package is $650, but costs can vary widely depending on the state, the amount of insurance and the deductible. Insurance companies also take into account building costs, neighborhood crime, square footage, as well as features like pools and fireplaces, and credit history.
To get a discounted price, some insurers offer an umbrella policy that combines other insurance, like car and homeowner’s insurance, with the landlord policy.
More important, the coverage helps protect landlords from liability if someone gets hurt on their property. Some policies also pay for some or all of legal expenses. It also will pay for some or all the medical expenses for people injured on the property if the landlord is found responsible.
Unlike a homeowner’s policy, the landlord policy also will compensate for lost rent if the building is uninhabitable because of damage that is covered by the insurance. This is a big deal for a landlord who relies solely on that income, especially if a building is under repairs for a long time.
“What if you need to rebuild the building? What about that income?” says Ed Charlebois, vice president of personal lines at Travelers.
Landlords can add on other options, for a price, to either increase how much money an insurance company will pay out or to expand coverage to certain events.
For example, a landlord may want protection from burglary or vandalism. Or, he may want to insure against building code violations and fire department charges. Some companies allow landlords to insure specific property like satellite dishes.
Like homeowner’s insurance, landlord policies don’t include any protection against flooding. That coverage is available through the National Flood Insurance Program. It includes building coverage with personal property coverage as an option.
While flood coverage can be expensive in high flood zones, it could help offset a huge hit if a property is flooded. The average flood claim totaled more than $33,000 over the past 10 years, according to the government, and just a few inches of water can cause damage costing thousands of dollars. And most mortgage lenders require flood protection in a high flood zone.
Renters also can get their own flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program to protect their personal belongings. Landlords may want to recommend that tenants buy that and their own renter’s insurance since landlord policies don’t cover a renter’s property. Some of the large national apartment owners require their tenants to buy renter’s insurance.
To head off any disputes with an insurance company if as there is a claim, landlords are advised to have dated photos of the property, both inside and out, to show its condition before any damage.
Also, they should make the property safer by regularly inspecting it for any hazards like cracked or uneven sidewalks, broken handrails and burned out light bulbs, State Farm recommends. Out-of-town landlords may want to hire a property manager to deal with these problems promptly.
___
On the Net:
www.floodsmart.gov
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 18, 2009 under Claims |
Man’s best friend is sinking its teeth into homeowners insurance costs. Dog bites account for one-third of all homeowners insurance liability claims, costing $387.20 million in 2008, up 8.70 percent from 2007, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.).
An analysis of homeowners insurance data by the I.I.I. found that the average cost of dog bite claims was $24,461 in 2008 (the most recent figures available) down slightly from $24,511 in 2007. Since 2003, however, the cost of these claims has risen nearly 28 percent. Additionally, the number of claims has increased 8.89 percent to 15,823 in 2008 from 14,531 in 2007.
“The rise in dog bite claims over the course of the past five years can be attributable to the increased medical costs as well as the size of settlements, judgments and jury awards which have risen well above inflation in recent years,” said Loretta Worters, vice president of the I.I.I.
More than 4.5 million people in the U.S. are bitten by dogs annually, and nearly 900,000 of those — half of them children — require medical care, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). More than 31,000 Americans needed reconstructive surgery after dogs attacked them in 2006, center figures show. With more than 50 percent of bites occurring on the dog owner’s property, the issue is a major source of concern for insurers.
Dog Owner Liability
There are three kinds of law that impose liability on owners:
- Dog-bite statute: The dog owner is automatically liable for any injury or property damage the dog causes, even without provocation.
- “One-bite” rule: In some states, the owner is not held liable for the first bite the dog inflicts. Once an animal has demonstrated vicious behavior, such as biting or otherwise displaying a “vicious propensity”, the owner can be held liable. Some states have moved away from the one-bite rule and hold owners responsible for any injury, regardless of whether the animal has previously bitten someone.
- Negligence laws: The dog owner is liable if the injury occurred because the dog owner was unreasonably careless (negligent) in controlling the dog.
In most states, dog owners are not liable to trespassers who are injured by a dog. A dog owner who is legally responsible for an injury to a person or property may be responsible for reimbursing the injured person for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and property damage.
“Although some people purchase dogs for the purpose of guarding their homes, deadbolt locks and home security systems are safe burglary deterrents and that will often earn you a discount on your insurance premium,” said Worters.
A single lawsuit — even if won — can end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, Worters said.
“Most dogs are friendly, loving members of the family,” said Worters. “But even normally docile dogs may bite when they are frightened or when protecting their puppies, owners or food. Ultimately, the responsibility for properly training and controlling a dog rests with the owner.”
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 9, 2009 under Safety |
The death toll on the nation’s highways dropped in 2008 to 37,261, a 9.7 decrease from the 2007 total and the lowest level since 1961, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The trend continued in the first quarter of 2009; the 7,689 traffic related fatalities from January through March represent a 9 percent decline from the same period a year ago. Plus, it was the twelfth consecutive quarterly decline the U.S. DOT statistics show.
In 1970 around 55,000 people were dying on U.S. roadways every year, so recent trends are definitely going in the right direction, says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Speaking at a conference held by the Insurance Council of Texas in July 2009, Lund said much of the recent decrease in traffic fatalities has a lot to do with the economic downturn.
“When the economy tanks one of the few good things about it is people are driving less, they are driving more safely and we don’t kill as many people on the roads. That’s unfortunately why we’re down to 37,000 deaths in 2008,” Lund said. Vehicle miles traveled during the first three months of 2009 declined by about 11.7 billion miles, according to preliminary data collected by the Federal Highway Administration. Lund suggested that those numbers will start to creep back up as the economy recovers.
Aside from the economy, however, other influences have served to keep roadway deaths in check, including stricter traffic safety laws in most states and automobile safety improvements, such as side airbags and antilock brake systems. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a July 2009 announcement that increased seat belt use, a reduction in alcohol impaired driving, safer roads and highways, and improved vehicle safety have all played important roles in the declining death rate.
Top Safety Picks
Automobile manufacturers have realized that they can compete on safety, Lund said. As a result, the number of vehicles list of the IIHS’ Top Safety Pick rated automobiles has increased from around 13 or 14 a few years ago to more than 70 today. To be eligible for Top Safety Pick status a vehicle has to be a good performer for frontal crash protection, a good performer for side impact protection and a good performer for rear impact protection. “It also needs electronic stability control,” Lund said.
Real world data from automobile crashes show that side air bags in vehicles reduce the risk of fatalities by 30 percent, Lund said. “If you add the head protection you’ll see we’re up to 40 and 50 percent reductions in the risk of fatal injury,” he added, noting that every new vehicle sold in the U.S. after September of this year will be equipped with side airbags, the result of an agreement with automobile manufacturers.
While neck injuries are not life threatening, it is estimated that the insurance industry pays out between $8 billion and $10 billion a year for neck sprains caused automobile accidents. With a good rated head restraint system, as opposed to a poorly rated one, “we see about a 15 percent reduction in the likelihood there is a neck injury claim filed in a rear impact,” Lund said.
Electronic stability control (ESC), which basically is an extension of the vehicle’s anti-lock brake system, can apply the brakes to each individual wheel when it senses that the car is losing control, Lund explained. “ESC has a huge effect. We see about a 40 percent reduction in single vehicle crashes and overall about a 35 percent reduction in the risk of fatal crashes,” with ESC equipped vehicles, he said.
The IIHS plans to add another element to its list of requirements for Top Safety Pick status – vehicle roof strength. “We kill about 10,000 people each year in crashes where rollover is involved,” Lund said. One factor in whether or not one survives a rollover accident is the strength of the vehicle’s roof. The federal government requires a vehicle to support one and a half times its own weight, and “they all meet minimum standards. But there’s a range of performance out there and some manufacturers have built in a lot more protection than others,” he said.
The IIHS estimates that with a vehicle that supports four times its own weight the risk of death from a serious rollover accident is reduced by 50 percent. That standard “will be part of our Top Safety Pick program going forward,” Lund said.
Other examples of recent innovations in vehicle safety that are not yet included in criteria for Top Safety Picks but were available on vehicles in 2008 include crash avoidance technology such as forward collision warning, brake assist and lane departure warning systems. Blind spot protection and adaptive headlights that can rotate “to reveal what’s around the bend before you get to the bend,” are still other examples of new technologies designed to make driving safer, Lund said.
Challenges Going Forward
Despite more stringent traffic laws and vehicle safety improvements, Lund said in some ways driving is getting more dangerous. One of the main culprits is distracted driving in what is an increasingly multi-tasking society. Eating, applying make up and even smoking have long been seen as common but dangerous-while-driving activities. Cell phone use – both the voice and texting features – is now seen as a major contributor to the distracted driving problem.
“The thing about cell phone use is that we’ve actually been able to measure that,” Lund said. “We know that once the conversation begins there’s a four-fold increase in the risk of crashing.”
A few states and municipalities have implemented laws to prevent or limit the use of cell phones while driving and even more have enacted stricter provisions regarding seat belt use. At the same time however, travel speeds have been allowed to creep up.
Lund noted that Texas was the first state to get back to an 80 mile per hour speed limit, which is allowed in the western part of the state. Unfortunately, Lund said, “the faster you’re going out there when you crash the more likely it is that there are going to be severe consequences. And the faster you are going the more likely you are to crash in the first place.”
He also questioned whether consumers would continue to accept new safety features, such as crash avoidance technologies, some of which take automatic actions – such as braking – if they sense a crash is imminent. Lund said, for example, studies show that professional drivers tend to find the lane departure warning systems to be annoying and routinely disable them.
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 4, 2009 under Safety |
Auto and traffic safety efforts over the past 40 years have significantly reduced the number of accident-related injuries and fatalities, according to an analysis of government data.
The data shows a continuing drop in motor vehicle fatality rates over the 40-year period from 1968 to 2008, as well as a decline in the motor vehicle traffic injury rate despite an increase in vehicle miles traveled, according to the analysis by the American Insurance Association (AIA) .
For example, Americans drove close to one trillion miles in 1968, compared to nearly 3 trillion in 2008. Over those four decades, the motor vehicle traffic fatality rate dropped from 5.19 deaths per-100 million vehicles miles traveled in 1968 to a record-low 1.27 deaths per-100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2008.
Additionally, over the past 20 years the injury rate has dropped from 169 injuries per-100 million vehicle miles traveled in 1988 to 80 injuries per-100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2008.
The researchers said that by examining the underlying rates rather than simply looking at the total number of deaths and injuries, the statistics take into account any fluctuations in vehicle miles traveled and show that improved safety measures are the leading cause for the pronounced reduction in fatalities and injuries.
AIA’s analysis goes a step further to highlight how the safety-promoting efforts of the insurance industry and other groups have made a critical difference. By looking at the current year vehicle miles traveled and using the fatality rate of historical years, AIA has estimated the amount of people that would have been killed or injured had there been no improvements at all in vehicle and traffic safety.
