Over at the NYIA, you can find NYIA Testimony at Senate No-Fault Hearing, where the NYIA president represents that premiums are increasing because of no-fault fraud. Maybe, just maybe, they are increasing because the insurance companies have made bad investments or because they pay doctors (the same five or so of them) $1,500.00 (sometimes twice if the trial gets adjourned) to testify that $500.00 worth of whatever wasn’t necessary. It couldn’t be that. No, that’s crazy talk. And for some reason, the testimony is in all caps. Apparently she screamed the entire time. While you are there, notice that there will be a Fraud Summit on April, 21. I won’t attend. More likely, I’ll say that I’m going, not go, and write a really dumb post about it.
It’s a horse, not a dog.
Hold the phone. Did I get his right?
Two defense counsel debating whether no-fault should be eliminated or just curtailed and reduced to enhance carrier profits?
And this is going to be a real debate?
No less real than plaintiff or provider attorneys who are split on the same issue debating the topic, I suppose. Would it surprise you to learn that some insurers are in favor of doing away with no-fault altogether?
I was given the repeal argument. If you could choose, which side would you take? Keep with or without significant revisions or pitch?
“Would it surprise you to learn that some insurers are in favor of doing away with no-fault altogether?”
Not really, because I would guess that the plan in that respect would still entail State compelled insurance that New York residents are required to purchase from the very same carriers.
The proposed solution will involve an enhancement of insurer profits, not a reduction. No way you would piss off your clients in an economic climate such as this.
Wrong and wrong.
Didn’t they try to get rid of no-fault in Florida? What happened next…
Zuppa’s Pit is vigorously pushing for the abolition of No Fault.
No major insurance company wants that.
Insurance companies earn money off of no fault. Basta. Big money. They just admitted it in front of the Senate. When they say fraud causes premiums to go up they are applying a general principle to one area.
The general principle is that costs make premiums go up. Any cost. They premium goes up so that the insurance company can make profits.
Fraud benefits insurance companies. The get to raise premiums to cover the cost of real fraud and they get the justification to deny and delay payment on legitimate claims. Both up profits. As such they get fradulent profits.
Plus in this environment their actuaries get to factor in legitimate claims into their fraud calculations so that the fraud number is higher then reality. That boosts premiums.
They bought the government and now they’ll have laws and new regs to assist in their fraud.
Insurance companies want to get rid of No Fault? My ass. That’s a B.S. cover story to create more smoke for the legislature. If they weren’t getting rich off it they wouldn’t be selling it.
But we’re going to push it. Especially after the new regs and new legislation come out. Screw no fault. Keep them in the realm of bad faith 3rd party. Let injured parties recover through negligence suits.
When you get rid of No Fault you get rid of threshold.
“When you get rid of No Fault you get rid of threshold.”
Indeed, the court of appeals made it clear in Montgomery v. Daniels that no-fault is the tradeoff that makes the threshold restrictions Constitutional– i.e. the existance of statutory first party benefits timely recoverable, ostensibly, without commencing an adversarial proceding.
Ignoring this prospective debate, what we are seeing on the ground is an attempt at the hat trick–maintain elimination of threshold, whilst gutting no-fault in a manner inconsistent with Montgomery v. Daniels, yet also in a manner than enhances carrier no-fault profits. Prove me wrong.
I may well have unwittingly worked for a fraudulently operated medical provider at some point and don’t mean to be a complete holey cow, but I also know for a fact that the fraud statistics provided by the insurance industry are a fraud. The carriers allege fraud in their process of fraudulently denying claims– i.e. denying claims under transparetly false SIU pretexts.
Personally, the stats that I have seen are shocking. I’ve had several patently bogus SIU premised papers cross my desk recently–carriers calling their insureds frauds to escape payment of healthcare benefits– yet not one has had even a remote ring of truth. Absolute bozos calling their own insurds frauds under patently bogus pretexts which are easily exposed.
Keep an eye out for new App Term First decisions on this. And note the numerous recent decisions finding the SIU related affs insufficent. All those failed and bogus fraud assertions account for the insurers’ trumped up provider fraud statistics.
Sun,
Do you have inside information on certain “[n]ew App Term First decisions on this”?
Excellent question.