What if Insurers Didn’t Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting? By ANN CARRNS
Associated PressA 2010 texting-related crash in Missouri.
Last month, the National Transportation Safety Board called for a nationwide ban on the use of cellphones and other “portable electronic devices” while driving.
“It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving,” the board’s chairman, Deborah A.P. Hersman, said in a statement.
It’s uncertain whether the board’s call will be heeded, given the public’s addiction to instant electronic communication, any time and anywhere. But the proposal has generated discussion. One provocative idea was floated by a man from Boulder, Colo. He suggested, in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal, that insurance companies could curtail distracted driving if they simply refused to pay claims for accidents caused by texting. (Many states specifically ban texting while driving, but enforcement varies.)
That sounded like an intriguing proposal to us here at Bucks — one that could be applied to all sorts of bad driving behavior, including drunken driving.
The idea, though, seems to be a nonstarter. Insurance companies, and even a consumer advocate, make the point that coverage for injuries to yourself or others as a result of an accident — even one caused by careless or just plain stupid behavior — is one of the main reasons to buy insurance in the first place.
“An accident is an accident,” says Mark Romano, an insurance specialist with the Consumer Federation of America. “And if you’re reckless enough to do things you shouldn’t be doing, then your insurance is there to cover you.”
Dick Luedke, a spokesman for State Farm, said in an e-mail that the insurer typically pays for accidents, even if the driver is intoxicated. “Generally speaking, we fulfill our promise even when the person to whom we make the promise violates the law, and we fulfill our promise to the person who texts while driving, whether or not that person is violating the law.”
“That’s the point of insurance,” Mr. Luedke said, in a follow-up phone call. He also noted that while the spotlight currently is on texting and cellphone use, there are all sorts of other ways drivers can become distracted, whether by disciplining children in the back seat, eating lunch or even fiddling with the radio: “Where do you draw the line?”
There’s also the problem of innocent parties who are injured. Say you are texting and not paying attention, and you strike a pedestrian, who incurs big medical bills. Typically, your insurance would pay for the victim’s care, since you caused the accident. Would it be fair to tell the victim, “Sorry, that’s not covered? The driver was texting so we can’t cover you?” said Loretta Worters, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, in an e-mail. “We have an obligation to pay that claim, to protect that innocent bystander, even if you were stupid.”
Of course, if drivers repeatedly get in accidents, whether due to drunken driving or texting or another reason, the insurer is likely to jack up their premiums, or cancel their coverage.
Ms. Worters noted that the industry is taking steps to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving.
What do you think? Is there an argument to be made for not covering accidents caused by texting or other bad driving behavior?
No comments:
Post a Comment