Season’s Greeting from Statewide Insurance
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 23, 2009 under Office News | 
Be the First to Comment
Wishing you and your
family a very
Merry Christmas and
a Happy New Year!
Your friends at
Statewide Insurance
National Flood Insurance Program to Expire Dec. 18
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 16, 2009 under Flood | Be the First to Comment
Time is running out once again for the National Flood Insurance Program, which is set to expire on Dec. 18.
Congress passed a short-term extension in September that moved the expiration deadline for NFIP to Dec. 18, 2009. But if Congress fails to act again this week, the main source of protection against flooding for more than five and a half million homeowners could be in jeopardy, potentially costing the government and taxpayers billions of dollars.
Insurers are urging Congress to pass an extension to the NFIP before it’s too late.
“The expiration of the flood insurance program could have severe consequences on the economy and directly impact consumers,” said David A. Sampson, president and CEO of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).
PCI says that a continuing resolution will likely pass today that will extend the NFIP through Dec. 23. The continuing resolution will give the Senate a few more days to work on the Defense Appropriations bill, which would now extend the program through Feb. 28, 2010.
“We cannot afford to compound the economic challenges our nation already faces by allowing the NFIP to lapse,” Sampson said. “If NFIP expired, real-estate transactions in flood-prone areas could collapse, resulting in even more devastation for the housing market.”
Source: PCI
Teens Ignoring Driving-and-Texting Ban
Posted by Benji Riggins on under Safety | Be the First to Comment
Karen Cordova, a 17-year-old high school student and part-time supermarket cashier, admits she sometimes texts friends while driving home from work late at night, lonely and bored.
The Arizona teenager knows it’s illegal in Phoenix and dangerous. She once almost drifted into oncoming traffic while looking at her phone.
But would a nationwide ban stop Cordova and her friends from texting in their cars? No way, she said.
“Nobody is going to listen,” Cordova said.
With momentum building in Washington for all 50 U.S. states to outlaw text messaging behind the wheel, there is evidence that the key demographic targeted by such legislation, teen drivers, will not pay much attention.
At least one major study has found that, with mobile devices now central to their lives, young people often ignore laws against using cell phones or texting in the car.
The number of text messages is up tenfold in the past three years and Americans sent an estimated 1 trillion in 2009.
Some police agencies, while strongly in favor of such mandates, say its tough for officers to enforce them.
The California Highway Patrol has handed out nearly 163,000 tickets to drivers talking on hand-held phones since mid-2008. But it has issued only 1,400 texting citations since January in a state of 23 million drivers—not for lack of trying.
“The handheld cell phone is relatively easy for us to spot, we can see when somebody has their phone up to their ear,” CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said.
“But with the texting it’s a little bit more of a challenge to catch them in the act, because we have to see it and if they are holding it down in their lap it’s going to be harder for us to see.”
Already 19 states and the District of Columbia ban texting by all drivers, while 9 others prohibit it by young drivers.
TEXTING CAUSES ACCIDENTS
In July, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, citing a study that found texting drivers were 23 times more likely to be in an accident, introduced a bill requiring states to prohibit the practice or risk losing federal highway funds.
Since then, Senator Jay Rockefeller has offered his own bill that would achieve the ban through grants to states.
In October, during a three-day conference in Washington on distracted driving, President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring federal employees from texting behind the wheel.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would seek to expand that rule to bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines and called the conference “probably the most important meeting in the history of the Department of Transportation.”
But a much-cited study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that usage of cell phones for calls and texting in North Carolina actually ticked up slightly after the state banned them for drivers under the age of 18.
A study by the Automobile Club of Southern California found that texting by drivers dropped after the state’s law took effect, but it did not break down the data by age.
“What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it’s hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong,” said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the Automobile Club.
The problem is not unique to the United States. In Britain, a public service announcement on texting while driving drew worldwide attention for its extremely graphic imagery.
The spot shows three texting teen girls in a horrific head-on collision with another car, and lingers on shots of their bloodied faces shattering the windshield as a child whose parents have been killed cries for her dead mother to wake up.
In 2007, Phoenix became one of the first U.S. cities to ban texting while driving, although Arizona still has no statewide law.
Out of a group of four high school students interviewed by Reuters in Phoenix, three admitted texting while driving and a fourth said he had stopped only after his cousin caused a serious traffic accident while sending a message.
Cordova’s classmate, 17-year-old Anna Hauer, says she often texts her boyfriend when she drives and doubts she or her friends would stop because of new legislation.
“By the time they pull you over, the chances are you are going to be done with your text anyway so they can’t exactly prove that you were texting,” she said.
Dog Bites Insurers
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 11, 2009 under Safety | Be the First to Comment
A recently released report from the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) produced some eye-opening statistics regarding dog bites. According to the study, dog bites account for one-third of all homeowners’ insurance liability claims, costing $387.2 million in 2008, up 8.7 percent from 2007.
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 annually to 15,823 in 2008 from 14,531 in 2007.
From an insurance and personal safety perspective, dog ownership seems to be a place where risk management can be helpful in reducing the exposure to injury. Avoidance is the most obvious approach. Statistically 61 percent of dog bites occur at the owner’s home; and 77 percent are by the dog of a family member or family friend.
Is it the Owner or the Breed?
In September 2000, a Vet Med Today Special Report (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000) listed the dog breeds most responsible for the 282 bite-related fatalities between 1979 and 1998. The top five breeds (themselves responsible for 64.9 percent of all dog-bite fatalities) were:
- Pit bull (26.95 percent of all fatalities);
- Rottweiler (15.6 percent of all fatalities);
- German Shepherd;
- Husky; and
- Malamute.
Many people love and want dogs and there is some indication that pet ownership is healthy, especially for senior citizens. Dogs also provide security for persons and property. Those who choose to own a dog must apply other risk management steps to make dog ownership safer as well as enjoyable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta suggest that:
- Owners should carefully choose your pet dog by evaluating the environment and lifestyle. Potential owners should speak with a professional to determine the appropriate type of pet.
- Dogs should be neutered to reduce aggressive tendencies.
- Never leave infants or young children alone with a dog.
- Be sensitive to cues that a child is fearful or apprehensive about a dog.
- Children be taught basic safety around dogs (and reviewed regularly).
- Dogs with histories of aggression are inappropriate for families with children.
- Owners should not play aggressive games with their dog (i.e. wrestling).
- If bitten, the bite should be reported immediately.
Dog Owner Liability
States differ on how they legally view dog bites. There are three kinds of law that govern the liability or responsibility imposed on dog owners:
- Dog-bite statute: The dog owner is automatically (or strictly) liable for any injury or property damage the dog causes, even without provocation (a trespasser or someone committing a crime may be exceptions).
- “One-bite” rule: In approximately 18 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 absolute application of the one-bite rule and at times hold owners responsible for any injury, regardless of whether the animal has previously bitten someone. These are known as “mixed dog bite statute states” as they apply a mixture of the “one-bite” rule and the strict liability of the previously listed dog-bite statute.
- 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.
Insurer Response
Claims frequency and costs from dog bites have escalated. Insurers, who are usually responsible for these costs under Homeowners policies, are now taking this problem very seriously. In most states the Homeowners’ program has no provisions for excluding the legal responsibility for dog bites and no provisions for charging additional premiums for the increased exposure. Consequently, insurers must underwrite around the exposure. This means not accepting risks where there is a known increased exposure and deciding not to renew risks when the underwriter becomes aware of an exposure after initial acceptance. Many insurers are attempting to underwrite the dog exposure by identifying the breed of the dog in question and assessing the extent to which the exposure is increased.
Christopher J. Boggs, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, LPCS, AAI, APA, CWCA, CRIS
MyNewMarkets.com
Insurance Journal
Associate Editor
800-897-9965 x137
www.MyNewMarkets.com
