On the Cusp of Historic Increases – Automobile No-Fault Figures

April 23, 2015 By Hansen Dordell

automobile

Senator Tom Saxhaug (DFL – District 5) of Grand Rapids has proposed new legislation related to Minnesota’s no-fault automobile coverage. His bill, SF260, was introduced on January 22, 2015, and was subsequently referred to the Commerce Committee. (A debate on its merits has yet to be scheduled.) If adopted, Sen. Saxhaug’s bill will create significantly greater exposure for no-fault carriers.

The stated purpose of SF260 is to create a system, under proposed § 65B.495, of bi-annual inflationary adjustments for the dollar figures referenced throughout Minn. Stat. § 65B. The adjustments would be based on the Consumer Price Index and would be noticed by the commissioner no later than September 30 of every even-numbered year with enactment on January 1 of every odd-numbered year. Currently no such system is in place.

Due to the lack of attention to this matter over the past several years, SF260 begins with some significant adjustments. If enacted the basic economic loss benefits available under Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subdivision 1 would increase from $40,000 ($20,000 for medical and $20,000 for income loss, etc.) to $94,300. The new breakdown would increase the funds available for medical expenses an astounding 314.5%, to $62,900, and the funds available for income loss expenses 157%, to $31,400. As a result, the weekly maximum distribution for disability and income loss would increase from $500 to $600 (subd. 3), the weekly maximum distribution for replacement services would increase from $200 to $300 (subd. 5), and the weekly maximum distribution for survivors’ replacement services would increase from $200 to $600 (subd. 7). The bill would also modify the dollar figures for providing notice of treatment or training, uninsured and underinsured coverage and the cut-off figure for mandatory submission to arbitration (from $10,000 to $15,700).

Further, SF260 would considerably modify Minn. Stat. § 65B.51 and its limitation of damages for noneconomic detriment. If accepted, the language prohibiting recovery of damages for noneconomic detriment will be “simplified” to allow recovery in such incidents where the injury results in 1) significant permanent disfigurement; 2) significant permanent injury; 3) death; or 4) the inability to engage in substantially all of the injured person’s usual and customary daily activities for 60 days or more – whatever that entails.

Filed Under: All Insurance Company Blog Posts, Blog Posts, For Individuals, Insurance Defense, Personal Injury

Categories

Recent Blog Posts

  • Paul D. Funke Named 2021 Minnesota Rising Star
  • Covid-19 Vaccine Compensability Issues
  • Creating certainty during an uncertain time – Part 2
  • Creating certainty during an uncertain time
  • COVID-19 Bill Shifts Burden of Proof to Employers

Blog Archives


Copyright © 2022 Hansen Dordell