A View From The Press Box

The money for these services will come from someone. If the taxpayers have to pay, then the burden is spread to everyone and not just those using the service. Is this fair, or could one make an argument for pay as you play (so to speak)?

On the other hand, everyone uses the service of the police and fire department (even if they never have a fire or an accident) as there are other ancillary services performed by these people. One could argue, however, that this part of the service is covered by taxes.

If insurance pays this, then premiums will increase to cover the cost and all insureds will share the cost. Maybe I am okay with making the individual pay.

I feel that such referenced fees levied on drivers for deployment of public safety services is discriminatory, unthinkable, and unfair.

There are several problems with adding a municipal surcharge on drivers for the deployment of public safety services.

First, for those folks who either don't have the money or don't want to pay, the surcharge has the potential to induce people to leave the scene of the accident. If this is done, those who have suffered a mild-to-severe traumatic brain injury will not have the legal outlet they have paid for and deserve.

By passing this ordinance, you would be depriving the public of gaining the ability to collect for damages owed to them by someone who has caused permanent injury.

I know this because I serve on the board of directors for the Brain Injury Association of Indiana. Many car crashes show no sign of visual injury, when in fact a brain injury may have occurred. I am a living example of that.

By passing a police accident surcharge fee, it is certain that municipalities would be hurting many more people than they may realize, by not allowing accident victims the legal outlet of police involvement and recovering damages from a wrongdoer if the person causing the accident chooses to leave the scene.

Even minor fender benders can cause mild brain injury and whiplash, which may render a person unable to work and remain a productive person in society. I have met several folks to which this has happened.

Next, it places the decision of who will be getting billed for the deployment into the police officer's hands by forcing them to make a decision of who was at-fault in accidents.

Lastly, we shouldn't have to pay for emergency services TWICE via our insurance policies and taxes. And for those who have caused the accidents, there is no guarantee that they carry insurance. For those who do carry insurance, police reports are needed to pay and investigate claims.

Should the at-fault driver not wish to be charged and leaves the scene, insurance companies rely on the police reports and the at-fault parties' insurance information to pay claims.

I feel that passing a law that bans a surcharge on at-fault accidents to defray the costs of deployment of PUBLIC safety services is in the best interest of the public and will NOT place us, the public, in more harm emotionally, physically, and financially, if we are involved in an accident.

Darcy Keith, traumatic brain injury survivor
and Business Analyst for State Auto Insurance.

The prospects here are almost too delicious to contemplate.

Who pays? The innocent accident victim? The responsible party? The last person leaving the scene? The bystander or witness who reported the accident on their cell phone? If insurers are required to pay, whose insurer are we talking about?

Will payment be required on the spot, before service is rendered? Or will you be billed?

Will the 911 operator ask for a credit card number before relaying a call for assistance?

Just think about the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of claims (even if they are just the little ones) that will have to be adjusted without the beneifit of third-party, on-scene investigation and reporting. Think of the litigation possibilities.

If I've paid for the response, is the resulting report private, like black box data? Is it priviledged? Can I, or my insurance company deny access to other claimants?

And, if my insurance company refuses to pay for the service? Do I have to give it to them?

And what if they want to raise my rates because of an allegely 'at fault' accident? Isn't demonstrating that the accident was 'at fault' their responsiblity?

Ah, but market will respond. I can see fleets of competing private-accident responders. Insurer-specific and fee for service. Will I get a discount if I use an 'in-network' responder?

Perhaps, we can put decals on our cars, like the fire marks that some of us are fond of collecting.

The insurance company that tries to avoid paying?

We're talking years of employment for attorneys, politicans, and professional comedians.

Oh, that's right, we're only charging non-residents. Does this mean that local governments will be discriminating against people involved in interstate commerce? Perhaps we need a federal law.

Regardless of the justice of such fees, the insurer should only pay for them if they are covered by the wording of the policy. If coverage applies, it should be paid, and if coverage does not apply, don't pay.

Remember, however, that insurers have been paying through the nose to support fraud bureaus, which are the only police agencies that will investigate a crime against an insurer, while the B of A doesn't pay for investigation of embezzlers and 7/11 doesn't pay to investigate and prosecute those who rob them.

I understand why cities charge for false alarms on burglar alarm systems, but the rest make no sense.

Pardon my bluntness, but what the h**L are we paying taxes for?

Maybe we should outsource all functions provided by municipalities. Create a corporation to oversee and be responsible for fixing roads, cleaning streets, recording deeds, collecting taxes, providing life safety, ...Oh, that's right, those ARE the functions of local, municipal government.

The insurance companies should lead the fight (the mutuals to protect their policyholders and the stocks to protect both the policyholders and stockholders) to eliminate this ever-increasing burden on the taxpayer and policyholder.

The older I get, the more amazed I become at what we are doing to ourselves as a society!

The "pay for service" model by the insurance industry is in many ways the basis for fire Insurance in the US. Just go back to our treasured fire marks as an example.

The NU e-newsletter I just received says:

"...notes NU Editor In Chief Sam Friedman, who can’t help but wonder what other government costs might be passed along in his blog today..."

What I want to know is why is Sam Friedman passing along any government costs in his blog--today or any other day?

SAM RESPONDS:
LOL! Good catch! Poor sentence construction on my part, indeed. Whatever you do in the insurance business, you might have a new career ahead of you as a copy editor! Thanks!

I live in Southern California, and this is already happening. Not by the police, but by fire departments and ambulance companies. Our policies are already written to include a sublimit to pay for these fees. It is a great way for the carrier to limit the amount that they end up paying.

If the fire department shows up at your home or business, or you are responsible for a fire to property you don't own, you get a bill later. It can be as much as $1,000, depending on where you live.

I guess I am saying that this does not have to be the worst thing that has happened to our industry. It just needs to be handled well by each insurance company and each municipality.

I believe charging the person for services is acceptable practice in certain cases, such as arson or fraud, where the actual miscreant would be responsible for the actual cost of services rendered.

It makes no sense when services are part of the tax base, and are usual and customary to the exposures presented by the population or clientele of the area.

If the exposure is increased by certain businesses, maybe a surcharge through a taxing district or special assessment is in order, but to charge everyone for services seems a double taxation.

As Sara Polly noted, we're used to getting charged for service in Southern California. Paramedic and ambulance service was one of the first to become a costly issue for residents and visitors alike; thus many will call the paramedics for treatment and then refuse transport. That cuts the bill by about 75% and in some cases, to nothing.

Our latest is the companies selling private fire protection contracts to homeowners at a cost of about $1,800 per year, from what the local news notes. They will then respond to your home in the event of a wildfire and provide additional protection in the form of equipment, trained personnel, etc.

As you might well believe, the local agencies are none too happy about this, but some residents are taking the private companies up on the offer, given the terrible destruction of the past wildfires, and the inability of current resources to effectively deal with what Mother Nature throws at them.

Let's see, if paying for services comes to fruition, that could be paying thrice, and would that bill also be ceded to the insurer? Or would there be a clause required stating overprotection is not acceptable? That would certainly be a strange legal wrangle should a large fire loss occur, wouldn't it?