Posted by Benji Riggins on May 2, 2011 under Insurance News | 
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (April 21, 2011) – Two highly regarded Winston-Salem, North Carolina, institutions will come together this 2011 racing season when GMAC Insurance signs on as sponsor of the Bowman Gray Stadium Modified Racing Series on Saturday nights in Winston-Salem and becomes the Official Insurance of Bowman Gray Stadium Racing. The series takes place at Bowman Gray Stadium, NASCAR’s very first and longest-running weekly race track, also known throughout racing circles countrywide as “The Madhouse” because of its exciting competition and enthusiastic fan support.
Starting April 30th and continuing Saturday nights throughout the 2011 summer season, GMAC Insurance and five partnering independent insurance agencies from counties surrounding the venue will be on-hand to sponsor and support the Bowman Gray Stadium Modified Racing series at Bowman Gray Stadium.
“Bowman Gray Stadium Racing and GMAC Insurance have a natural working relationship,” said Larry Pentis, President and CEO of GMAC Insurance. “People and cars essentially form the DNA of racing. As a leading insurance provider in the private passenger, motorcycle, RV and commercial vehicle market, our business is also focused on serving the needs of people and their vehicles. For us, it’s a natural fit.”
“Both entities share a rich heritage,“ said Gray Garrison, a member of the family who promotes NASCAR-sanctioned racing at Bowman Gray Stadium. “Bowman Gray Stadium held its first NASCAR-sanctioned event in 1949, over 60 years ago, and GMAC Insurance has called Winston-Salem home for 90 years. Both institutions have helped shape the history of this area.”
Gates open at 6 p.m. on Saturday nights to welcome fans and their families. Races begin at 8 p.m. GMAC Insurance and five partnering local Triad independent agencies will be on-hand at the events to interact with race fans, answer questions and provide information.
About GMAC Insurance Personal Lines Group
GMAC Insurance Personal Lines Group is one of the largest automobile insurers in the United States. GMAC Insurance Personal Lines Group offers property and casualty products, including personal auto, RV, motorcycle, commercial vehicle and homeowners insurance. With a nationwide network of claims professionals, local independent agents and brokers and a 24-hour, toll-free claims hotline available 365 days a year, GMAC Insurance provides superior claims service for its customers.
Posted by Benji Riggins on April 15, 2011 under Interesting Info |
Those photos on Facebook showing you palling around with drunks, the raunchy joke you posted on Twitter, and those links to politically incorrect groups on your personal Web site —all of this information can now become part of your job application and employment record.
The practice of employers checking employment, criminal and credit histories of job candidates is apparently no longer sufficient. A California company is helping employers collect information about job candidates and employees from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and wherever else on the Internet the person may have posted information.
“We not only review the social networks; it’s the two-thirds of user-generated content that doesn’t fall into the category of Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace,” said Max Drucker, co-founder and CEO of Social Intelligence Corp., in an interview with Insurance Journal. “We review blogs. We review bulletin boards. We review the microblogs. We review comments in forums. We really are looking for anything out there, personal web pages, anything out there that a person can create themselves and has posted publicly, into the public domain, online.”
Drucker sees his service as a risk management tool for employers, helping them avoid liability for negligently hiring someone who later turns out to be a real mismatch, or worse. Post-hiring, it helps keep employees in line with a company’s media policy.
Arms-Length
Companies are already scouring the Internet for information on job candidates and employees, but they may not be doing so efficiently or thoroughly, according to Drucker. What’s more, they may be exposing themselves to liability by identifying information they shouldn’t consider in hiring, such as age, race or religion. Social Intelligence acts as an “arms-length third party” to do the web searching for employers.
“[T]oday essentially all companies in the Fortune 500 do some form of a criminal background check. I don’t see this as any different,” says Drucker. “You have an obligation to your existing workforce and your customers to not make negligent hires, and this gives you the opportunity to do this, without the risk that goes into doing that thing yourself.”
After Social Intelligence’s computers comb the Internet for the information, at least three people at the firm review the results, according to Drucker. They customize their reports, giving employers the information they want while blacking out anything that is irrelevant to the job under consideration or that is illegal for employers to use in hiring such as if someone is pregnant or has a medical condition. If there is an objectionable photo, they describe it to the employer without actually including the photo in the report since that could disclose a person’s race, age or other irrelevant characteristics.
Protecting Applicants
By blocking certain information, his service benefits job candidates as much as it does employers, Drucker contends.
“We only provide solutions that are about protecting the job applicants from discrimination and, in turn, by doing that, you’re protecting the employers of allegations of discrimination. You’re giving them a fair hiring practice,” he told Insurance Journal.
“And we are coming from the approach of protecting that job applicant from potential discrimination or being evaluated based on things that are online that either, A, they have no control over, or B, simply are not relevant to the job.”
He says Social Intelligence functions as a consumer reporting agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Thus, he said, anyone who has suffered “adverse actioning”— been fired or not been hired—has a right to a copy of the report and an opportunity to correct any misinformation.
Drucker is surprised at what some people will post to the Internet.
“It’s ridiculous. I mean, we see this stuff all day, every day. People that are applying for jobs, people that have even posted their resumes online, that have these alter egos, doing things that represent them very poorly, and could, in turn, create a lot of risk for that company,” he said.
Social Intelligence is not just interested in embarrassing or negative information. “There’s looking for the objectionable material, but we’re also looking for positive attributes,” he says, citing such things as participation in industry-leading blogs or charitable organizations, or if someone has a lot of Linked-In contacts.
Drucker’s social media monitoring service can be continued post-hiring, too. Bosses may request email alerts if something questionable about the company or a worker appears on the Internet.
Social Intelligence will also monitor employees’ use of the Internet and social networks—to see if they are posting derogatory comments about the company or fellow employees..
“It’s critical that their employees adhere to what their media policy is, which is, of course, don’t give company secrets, and don’t talk about the company in this forum or that forum. Don’t have pictures of you doing a thing like shooting or drinking while wearing a company logos,” Drucker said.
Additional Applications
Drucker is no stranger to insurance. He previously co-founded an insurance web application company named Steel Card that ChoicePoint acquired a few years ago. While he thinks insurance firms are prime candidates for use of his services in their hiring, extending the use of Internet monitoring beyond hiring and into underwriting is probably not doable now, although it could happen in the future.
Right now, however, what does look promising in the insurance space is using social network and Web monitoring for fraud detection, following people who file disability, workers’ compensation and other insurance claims.
“[T]hat’s one of our areas that we are exploring,” he said.
Just as his firm promises to protect employers from being sued, he is well aware his own firm is exposing itself to privacy critics, if not to potential lawsuits, by poking around in individuals’ web spaces.
“Look, all companies need to worry about being sued, at some level, for whatever the reason and we certainly understand that we’re going into a new space that may be treated as controversial,” he said. He hopes that by “making every effort, in every single way, to adhere to all the laws” and by focusing on protecting job applicants, his firm should be in a safe place.
“But, of course, I have no idea of what may happen in the future,” he said.
By Andrew G. Simpson
December 9, 2010
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/12/09/115536.htm#ixzz17iUbJku3
Posted by Benji Riggins on March 22, 2011 under Safety |
Despite a last-minute attempt to derail it, the U.S. government launched a public database Friday that allows Americans to report and search safety complaints on thousands of products — from cribs and toys to power tools and hair dryers.
SaferProducts.gov, overseen by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, went live last Friday’s as scheduled over the objections of manufacturers and a stalled Republican effort in Congress to withhold money for the project until critics’ concerns were addressed.
The database allows people to file reports of injury or potential harm about household products, baby gear and more. In the coming weeks, as consumers file reports with the agency, people will be able to search for safety complaints about specific items they might have in their homes or want to purchase.
“Through SaferProducts.gov, consumers will have open access to product safety information that they have never seen before and the information will empower them to make safer choices,” Inez Tenenbaum, chairman of the consumer safety agency, told The Associated Press.
But manufacturers, congressional Republicans and others charge the public database will be replete with bogus reports and misleading information.
“We want the information to be as accurate as possible in this database,” said Rosario Palmieri, vice president of regulatory policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “Otherwise this will not be a useful tool for consumers.”
NAM had filed a petition asking the commission to delay Friday’s launch to address manufacturers’ concerns. The agency said it is still reviewing the petition.
Manufacturers want the definition of who can file a report to be more limited. Pretty much anyone can make a report. They don’t necessarily have to have first-hand knowledge of what happened. Database opponents worry that business competitors, trial attorneys and others will populate the system with reports inspired by political or financial motives.
That was one of the reasons Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican newcomer, sponsored an amendment approved in the Republican-led House last month to withhold additional funding for the database. But the amendment stalled in the Senate, where Democrats remain the majority.
Consumer advocates say the database has safeguards to ensure accuracy.
“It will not be the doomsday scenario that the industry has said it is going to be,” Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety and senior counsel at the Consumer Federation of America, said in an interview. “The database will end the secrecy that currently prevents critical product safety information from reaching consumers.”
While the website went live on Friday, the first complaints to go public likely will not come for about 15 days.
During a recent “soft launch” of the public database, where the agency tested the system for about six weeks, 1,500 reports were filed by consumers. Of those, the commission says, 13 were identified by manufacturers as having false or misleading information.
By Jennifer C. Kerr | March 15, 2011
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 28, 2011 under Insurance News |
The North Carolina Department of Insurance said that more than 800 people have submitted either written comments or public testimony on the industry’s request for a statewide increase averaging 20.9 percent in dwelling fire and extended coverage policies.
The comments come as the public comment period ended in anticipation of the Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin’s decision on the rate filing.
The North Carolina Rate Bureau, which is not affiliated with the department, submitted the rate request on January 4 on behalf of insurers. The filing included dwelling fire policies that are offered to homeowners whose property doesn’t meet the requirements to qualify for a standard policy. Dwelling extended coverage policies are offered to policyholders to cover perils that extend beyond fire and lightening. That includes content coverage and coverage for physical damage to the property due to sprinkler leakage, wind, hail, vandalism and aircraft and vehicle damage. Typically, the number of policies represents a small part of the state’s total property exposure.
The industry bureau is actually calling for a decrease in fire policies. Based on a total state premium of $84 million, the bureau’s indicated rate change for the policies is minus 6.6. However, the decrease is more than offset by the proposed increase for extended coverage. Based on a total state premium of roughly $151 million, the bureau is calling for an average 110.3 percent increase. All together it equals the statewide average change to 20.9 percent.
The department said that it received 865 written comments and heard from 11 speakers at a public comment session held January 24.
The filing is now being reviewed by the department to determine whether the rate changes are warranted. If the department and rate bureau cannot reach an agreement on the filing, Goodwin will hold a public rate hearing on the matter to hear from both sides.
By Michael Adams | February 4, 2011
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 23, 2011 under Flood |
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is seeking a top-to-bottom review of the efforts to reform the nation’s flood insurance program. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) has offered a set of reform proposals designed to improve the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) financial standing while ensuring protections for homeowners and businesses.
In comments submitted to the FEMA, which oversees the NFIP, NAMIC said that the existing structure provides a strong foundation on which to build the program into one that maximizes this role, is viable, and is financially sustainable. NAMIC outlined a series of steps that could be taken to improve the program, including long term reauthorization, the implementation of actuarially sound rates with direct subsidies for those unable to afford coverage, the use of updated flood zone maps and the forgiveness of the NFIP’s debts from the 2005 storm season.
The following is an edited version of NAMIC’s submission to FEMA.
Congress created the NFIP in 1968 to address the increasing costs of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. Recognizing that the private market simply could not underwrite the highly concentrated and costly risk of massive floods, the federal government stepped in to create a program to provide financial protection both to taxpayers as well as citizens in flood-prone areas. The program is designed to use the premium dollars taken in every year to pay out any flood losses incurred by policyholders. While the Standard Flood Insurance Policy offered by the NFIP is sold and administered by private insurers – “Write Your Own” (WYO) carriers – the federal government retains responsibility for underwriting losses.
Over the last 40 years, the program has been instrumental in alleviating the pain of serious financial losses brought about by flooding for millions of Americans. However, the program has not been without its challenges. Subsidized premiums have been charged on a non-actuarial basis; development has increased the number of people and property exposed to flood risk; take-up rates for those in need of coverage remains extremely low; and the recent severity of flood losses has demonstrated that the NFIP is not constructed to handle major catastrophic events. The program is approximately $20 billion in debt.
Reform, Don’t Replace the NFIP
To address the concerns with the NFIP, FEMA has launched a multi-step, comprehensive analysis of the program. In the latest phase, FEMA is considering a variety of different directions reform could go: from maintaining the status quo to abandoning the program altogether. We believe that the best, most effective and viable option is maintaining the current NFIP framework while implementing reforms that address existing weaknesses.
The presence of a federal program is just as important today as it was 40 years ago. The driving force behind the creation of the NFIP – no viable private market – remains the fundamental issue.
Privatization
Flood is a unique risk. Perhaps most importantly, it is a risk that is enormously difficult to underwrite due to adverse selection. Simply put, only those people that are at risk for flooding will purchase flood insurance, making it virtually impossible to pool risk among a large enough population for a viable and affordable insurance product. In order to underwrite a risk like this, an insurer would need to charge very high premiums and maintain significant capital reserves in case of massive flooding, when all of their policyholders would be making claims. In actuality, the only people who would be able to afford coverage would likely be those that did not need it.
The question has been asked as to whether the private insurance market is ready to handle flood risk now, but nothing about the situation has fundamentally changed and primary insurers are still unable to offer this coverage. Technically, the market is already “privatized” in that there is nothing preventing companies from currently writing flood coverage and competing with the NFIP. Almost none have elected to do so.
Price controls further diminish the opportunity for a private market for flood insurance to develop. In order to achieve a fully privatized market, companies would need to be able to charge actuarially sound, risk-based rates. However, there are two main problems with this approach. First, lawmakers and/or regulators often impose restrictions that allow high-risk property owners to pay artificially low insurance premiums, forcing lower-risk property owners to subsidize the insurance costs or creating hidden cross-subsidization. Secondly, even if rating freedom was achievable the premiums would likely be much more expensive, making affordability a major issue.
Another suggestion for solving the adverse selection problem is the mandatory purchase requirement. In other words, flood coverage would be included as a required part of every homeowner’s policy. Under this proposal, the government would be mandating that citizens purchase a product that most do not need – thereby creating a massive new cross-subsidization. This situation would benefit those who choose to live in flood-prone areas at the expense of individuals who do not. It would also do much to mask the true risks of living in certain areas and incentivize overdevelopment of environmentally sensitive coastal areas and poor land use behaviors.
The questions of how the mandatory purchase requirement or the granting of rating freedom would affect the regulation of insurance are significant. Efforts to reform the NFIP should steer clear of the political debate over state versus federal regulation so as not to hinder the prospects for meaningful reform.
Optimization
NAMIC believes that the NFIP fulfills an important role for protecting citizens from financial losses due to flood. The existing structure provides a strong foundation on which to build the program into one that maximizes this role, is viable, and is financially sustainable.
We recommend a package of key reforms that should include the following:
•Long-term Reauthorization – Repeated short-term reauthorization creates uncertainty and can lead to lapses in the program as we saw in 2010. During these lapses, companies were not permitted to write new policies, issue increased coverage on existing policies, or issue renewal policies. The NFIP should be reauthorized for an extended time period in order to give more stability to the program and consumers.
•Actuarially Sound Rates – The separation of rates from the actual costs of living in a flood-prone area represents the biggest problem with the program today. In order to avoid incentivizing citizens to move to risk-prone or environmentally fragile areas, the actual price that is charged for flood coverage must reflect the actual risk. The rates charged for flood coverage should be actuarially sound in order to get the program on solid footing.
•Outside Subsidies – As noted above, the move to actuarially sound rates is likely to be painful due to the higher premiums that will be charged. For those citizens that require it, flood vouchers might be offered – independent of the NFIP – to help mitigate the costs. Any further subsidies that the government determines are necessary must be independent and transparent.
•Updated Flood Zone Maps – Additional federal funds should be allocated to the national flood hazard mapping program. Updating and improving flood maps should be a priority within FEMA to identify communities that will benefit most from updated flood maps. Speedy adoption of updated flood maps should be encouraged so that people in flood-prone areas can get the protection they need.
•Improve Take-Up Rates – Currently only 20 percent to 30 percent of property owners exposed to flood hazards actually purchase insurance. The program needs to improve these numbers dramatically in order to stay on a stable fiscal footing. There are several possible ways to improve these take-up rates:
•Stiffer Penalties – Fines should be imposed on financial institutions that fail to require flood insurance coverage for mortgages on properties in flood-prone areas or allow those policies to lapse.
•Improved Education – The NFIP should be given additional resources and a renewed mandate to improve and expand its public education programs to ensure that more people are made aware of the program and the benefits of having flood insurance coverage to protect their properties.
•Disaster Relief Waiver – Require homeowners in flood-prone areas to sign a waiver stipulating that they forfeit their right to disaster relief in the event they choose not to purchase flood insurance.
•Debt Forgiveness – The NFIP is nearly $20 billion dollars in debt. In order to retain long-term solvency the debt must be forgiven. Currently, the NFIP pays approximately $900 million a year to the Treasury in the form of interest payments. Without eliminating the debt, the future of the program is in jeopardy.
Conclusion
The FEMA process for revaluating the NFIP has been a productive one. Considering community-based or free market solutions is a goal that NAMIC shares. However, in this particular case, what may sound good on a conceptual level may create more problems than solutions.
The NFIP is in need of significant reforms in order to continue providing flood protection to those that need it. NAMIC urges FEMA to adopt the suggestions outlined above to maintain and optimize the current structure. NAMIC believes that optimization is the best way to balance all the goals of the reform effort: fiscal soundness, affordability of insurance, adequate coverage for those at risk, floodplain management with reduction of flood hazard vulnerability, economic development, individual freedoms, and environmental concerns.
NAMIC looks forward to working with the NFIP Reform Working Group and FEMA on this very important issue.
Jimi Grande is senior vice president of federal and political affairs for NAMIC. NAMIC’s 1,400 member companies write all lines of property/casualty insurance and include small, single-state, regional, and national carriers.
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/12/30/116030.htm#ixzz19hNfJDSj
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 17, 2011 under Interesting Info |
There were 48 fatal workplace accidents in North Carolina in 2010, a tally that is up from 34 in the previous year but below the five-year average of 53.2.
At the same time, the state’s overall injury and illness rate is currently at an all time low for private industry, according to North Carolina Department of Labor officials.
“Any workplace death is a tragedy and of great concern because it affects so many people—the family, co-workers, the community and our department,” Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry said. “We’ll redouble our efforts and work even harder to prevent these accidents from happening, and we’ll call on employers and employees across the state to recommit themselves to workplace safety and health in 2011.”
The Occupational Safety and Health Division of the state’s labor department has identified four hazards that have caused 80 percent of the work-related deaths during the past decade. The leading cause of the work-related fatalities in 2010 was struck-by accidents with 16 fatalities, followed by falls with 15. Nine workers were crushed by objects, and four were electrocuted. Four workers died in other fatal events.
“Many of the fatalities involved falls or crushed-by accidents and these can be avoided by using fall protection and paying close attention to your surroundings,” said Allen McNeely, director of the OSHD.
The injury and illness rate has steadily declined from 5.3 per 100 fulltime workers in 2000 to 3.1 in 2009.
“The injury and illness rate is encouraging for our state because it shows dramatic reduction in the number of employees injured per 100 workers,” Berry said. “Although injuries and illnesses are headed in the right direction, the ultimate injury—a fatal accident—is not.”
Manufacturing, dropped from eight fatalities in 2009 to six in 2010. Construction fatalities increased by one to 15 in 2010. There were six fatalities in the service industry, the same number as in 2009. Transportation and public utility fatalities increased from one in 2009 to five in 2010. Wholesale trade experienced five fatalities, and retail trade experienced four in 2010, an increase from no fatalities for wholesale trade and one for retail trade in 2009. Agriculture, forestry and fishing fatalities increased from two in 2009 to four in 2010. Finance, insurance and real estate accounted for three of the 2010 fatalities; there were none in that sector in 2009.
There were no work-related fatalities in 66 of North Carolina’s 100 counties. Mecklenburg County experienced the most fatalities with seven.
Whites accounted for 32 of the 48 workplace deaths. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for seven apiece. One victim was Asian and one was Native American. Men accounted for 47 of the 48 workplace fatalities.
By Andrew G. Simpson | January 19, 2011
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 14, 2011 under Insurance News |
Valentine’s Day is Monday. That means guys across the country this week are stressing over what to get that special girl in their life. And yes, many women are also unsure about what to get their guy that will accurately convey their feelings.
It’s too bad that life insurance — arguably the most appropriate gift for a loved one when you really think about it — will not even remotely enter the mind of the vast majority of the people who need it most.
This despite the findings of a new survey from the LIFE Foundation stating that 83% of consumers feel that buying life insurance that names the loved one as the beneficiary is a good way to express love for that loved one.
The LIFE Foundation, based in Arlington, Va., released the survey in conjunction with its 2011 Valentine’s Day consumer education campaign. If only the organization could have afforded the $3 million price tag for a 30-second Super Bowl commercial — and made it as clever as the Volkswagen Passat Darth Vader kid spot. Then we’d be talking some serious consumer awareness.
As that didn’t happen, it is left to you to make your clients and prospects aware that life insurance really does make a great Valentine’s Day gift. You’ll be preaching to the choir, even if buying life insurance isn’t always top of mind. The LIFE Foundation’s survey says 77% of men and 88% of women agree buying life insurance is a good way to express love for that loved one. The campaign hopes to draw attention to the fact that just 44% of U.S. households have individual life insurance, and 30% of U.S. households have no life insurance at all.
“With Valentine’s Day right around the corner, why not say ‘I love you’ to the most important people in your life by letting them know that they’ll always be taken care of, even after you’re gone?” says LIFE Foundation President Marvin Feldman.
You can utilize some of the LIFE Foundation’s tools to help you spread the word in your community by encouraging clients and prospects to visit www.insureyourlove.org. There they can watch some great videos, check out “Life Insurance 101,” use a calculator tool to help determine how much coverage they need, send a personalized slide show or even take the interactive “Romance-O-Meter” quiz to see how romantic they really are.
If anybody you encounter mentions to you this week that they are having a hard time finding the perfect Valentine’s Day gift, you can help them provide the best gift of all.
Brian Anderson
Published 2/9/2011
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 11, 2011 under Interesting Info |
Nearly one-third of American drivers smooch or engage in other romantic contact while they’re behind the wheel. That’s throughout the year, not just on Valentine’s Day, according to a new poll.
Twenty-nine percent of drivers surveyed for the InsuranceQuotes.com poll acknowledge they’ve been amorous behind the wheel. That number climbs to 39 percent for highly educated drivers (at least a bachelor’s degree) and high-income drivers (at least $75,000 in annual earnings).
“Kissing your Valentine while you’re driving certainly can be fun, but it also can be dangerous,” said John Egan, managing editor of InsuranceQuotes.com.
Egan said federal statistics show that 16 percent of fatal crashes in 2009 were attributed to distracted driving.
The poll, conducted for InsuranceQuotes.com by GfK Roper, shows how universal distracted driving has become: 93 percent of drivers report they engage in it somehow, whether by texting, talking on a cell phone — even kissing.
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 9, 2011 under Interesting Info |
Air bags and the economic recession have contributed to the biggest drop in road deaths in the United States since World War II, U.S. researchers said Tuesday.
Changes in driving patterns and safety features both contributed to a 22 percent decline in road deaths between 2005 and 2009, Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle of the University of Michigan said in a report that studied federal data looking for the causes associated with fatal crashes.
“From 2005 to 2009, U.S. road fatalities dropped by 22 percent (from 43,510 to 33,963). A reduction of such magnitude over such a short time has not occurred since road safety statistics were first kept (starting in 1913), except for the reductions during World War II,” they wrote in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.
“We were amazed by the magnitude of this,” Sivak said in a telephone interview.
Separately, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 85 percent of American drivers say they use seat belts all the time, while 1 in 7 do not.
Traffic deaths in 2009 were the lowest since 1954, the U.S. Department of Transportation said in March.
“The two general factors that we are putting our money on are technological advances, primarily air bags, and the economic downturn,” Sivak said.
He and Schoettle analyzed traffic patterns and found, for instance, an overall 4 percent drop in traffic, with notable decreases during rush hour and less traffic on high-speed interstate highways. They also found fewer crashes involving trucks, along with data that less freight is being shipped.
“This supports the notion that people are cutting down on travel and staying closer to home. Traffic on local streets has increased,” Sivak said.
DISTRACTED DRIVING
Federal statistics include a code for factors involved in fatal crashes and they point to a big increase in inattentive driving.
“U.S. data combine talking, eating and using cell phones in the same group. We have seen an increase of 42 percent in fatal crashes in which the coder labeled inattention as a factor,” Sivak said.
In October researchers at the University of North Texas Health Science Center calculated that drivers using cell phones killed 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007. In 2009 the U.S. government blamed distracted driving for 16 percent of road deaths, or 5,800 deaths.
Sivak said it was difficult to say how much any one factor contributed to overall deaths, but there are clues pointing to the decline in fatalities.
“We have found there has been an increase in the deployment of air bags during crashes, especially side air bags,” he said. ”We have been driving less and we are driving differently.”
(Reporting by Maggie Fox, Editing by Anthony Boadle)
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/01/05/116131.htm#ixzz1AC3Ckrav
Posted by Benji Riggins on February 7, 2011 under Insurance News |
North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin announced good news for drivers in the state after the North Carolina Rate Bureau submitted its latest rate filing calling for no change in passenger car and motorcycle policies for 2011.
“This represents another victory for North Carolina drivers,” said Goodwin. “We already pay the eighth lowest auto rates in the country and we have a higher population than any other state in the top 10 lowest rates.”
Goodwin has stood firm on any rate change over the past several years. In 2009, he denied the rate bureau’s request for a 1.4 percent rate increase and rejected a 9.4 percent increase that had been implemented by the bureau the previous year. He also called for a 0.5 percent decrease. The commissioner’s action pushed rates to just under 2006 levels as one million state drivers received refunds from insurance companies totaling more than $50 million.
“The industry’s’ zero-change filing this year further affirms that I was correct in my decision to settle the 2008-2009 filings on the terms we did,” said Goodwin. “It allowed for a savings potential of $545 million over a three-year period for drivers statewide.
The North Carolina Rate Bureau is separate from the state Department of Insurance and makes rate filings for auto, workers’ compensation, and personal lines insurance.
By Michael Adams | February 4, 2011
