PIP is it going or here to stay [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : PIP is it going or here to stay


noway
09-08-2007, 18:17
If the mandatory PIP insurance goes out the door will you continue this on your coverage?

I've been back in FL for about 8yrs and still don't understand what PIP covers.

packinaglock
09-08-2007, 18:40
Im not sure either but I know years ago when I was single and spending most of my money on boose and women that is what I used for insurance.

noway
09-08-2007, 19:10
LOL ;)

THe state mandatory requirement of PIP is what bothers me. And now that it's could be going away as a "mandatory" requirement is good or bad, but either way it provide protection to the driver, and should be up to his/her decision if they want the extra coverage.

I bet alot of the insurance companies are going to be steaming from this requirement. I just pull my last insurance policy that I just renew and about 42 % of it goes to PIP when I compare just basic liability and UNIS and PIP. And this is with Gecko oops I mean GEICO ;)

rich52us
09-10-2007, 14:25
PIP stands for Personal Injury Protection. It is to cover medical bills and lost wages as a result of an auto accident no matter who is at fault for the accident. The PIP law expires at the end of Sept. I have State Farm, and I got a call from my agt. SF is offering similar coverage for less money as an option. The new coverage is actually better because it covers everyone in your car if you are in an accident. I opted to take the new coverage.

Gmountain
09-10-2007, 20:51
Without PIP, if you are in an accident and get hurt, unless you have medical insurance you will have to pay for medical treatment out of pocket. Doctors, who now will treat you because they can get paid from PIP, will not treat you.

You will have to sue the other driver to cover your medical expense. Same thing goes for lost wages. If you can't work, the only way you will recover lost wages is by suing the other driver.

A lot of people are going to have a lot of problems. The insurance companies are going to be happy though. They won't have to pay claims. You don't really think they were against PIP because it was somehow better for you?

DennisP
09-11-2007, 07:30
Question,
I have health insurance and I drop the PIP and get in an accident. To recoup my medical cost wouldn't my insurance company sue the other driver?

Thanks
Dennis P.

rich52us
09-11-2007, 10:53
Originally posted by DennisP
Question,
I have health insurance and I drop the PIP and get in an accident. To recoup my medical cost wouldn't my insurance company sue the other driver?

Thanks
Dennis P.

What you are talking about is called "SUBROGATION." That's when your insurance company has the right to "step in your shoes" and go after an at fault party or their insurance to recover what they have paid out. Probably your insurance co. would go after the other party.

The issue would be that if you do not have PIP, or the medical coverage that will replace it at the end of Sept., and your HEALTH INSURANCE pays out, and the other party is at fault, if you recover anything, your HEALTH INSURANCE would have the right to a lien on YOUR settlement. So if you have the new medical coverage that replaces PIP, and you get a settlement or judgement, you don't pay back for the medical bills.

noway
09-11-2007, 13:16
can you explain this ;


A lot of people are going to have a lot of problems. The insurance companies are going to be happy though. They won't have to pay claims. You don't really think they were against PIP because it was somehow better for you?



And with the last sentence ( see my confusion ) ;)



If I'm reading ( hearing you right ) w/PIP the insurance co has to pay the claims up to the state min that was enforced or whatever amount you had selected when you acquired PIP.

Now wo/PIP the automobile insurer is/doesn't have to pay anything towards your medical treatment.


Now lastly how does this play out with Bodily injured? ( see I'me even more confused) ;)

Since BI covers "bodily injury" and medical, can you file a claim aganist the other driver who hit you and get your medical granted by the other driver that's suppose to carry the state min BI/Proprty insurance?


Now my understanding is the above last scenario works fine in a dream world where ALL drivers have insurance. But PIP was for the realworld ,where alot of drivers ( SEFA for example ) don't have insurance or the correct ammount or if they do and you injuries where above their level, then you PIP and/or UNinsured motorist would kick in. So if you have immediate medical needs PIP was the fix-all, to avoid cost litigation, claims and such and such.

( correct me if I'm wrong )

please help noway in his confusion ;


Now lastly, how do states that don't have a requirement mandate PIP function? Are they better off or not?

I still think I'm going to relook at PIP and uninsured motorist insurance, even if the states pulls the requirement to not have it as a requirement.

Insurance should be looked at, as protection for youself ;)

rich52us
09-11-2007, 13:42
Originally posted by noway
can you explain this ;


A lot of people are going to have a lot of problems. The insurance companies are going to be happy though. They won't have to pay claims. You don't really think they were against PIP because it was somehow better for you?



And with the last sentence ( see my confusion ) ;)



If I'm reading ( hearing you right ) w/PIP the insurance co has to pay the claims up to the state min that was enforced or whatever amount you had selected when you acquired PIP.

Now wo/PIP the automobile insurer is/doesn't have to pay anything towards your medical treatment.


Now lastly how does this play out with Bodily injured? ( see I'me even more confused) ;)

Since BI covers "bodily injury" and medical, can you file a claim aganist the other driver who hit you and get your medical granted by the other driver that's suppose to carry the state min BI/Proprty insurance?


Now my understanding is the above last scenario works fine in a dream world where ALL drivers have insurance. But PIP was for the realworld ,where alot of drivers ( SEFA for example ) don't have insurance or the correct ammount or if they do and you injuries where above their level, then you PIP and/or UNinsured motorist would kick in. So if you have immediate medical needs PIP was the fix-all, to avoid cost litigation, claims and such and such.

( correct me if I'm wrong )

please help noway in his confusion ;


Now lastly, how do states that don't have a requirement mandate PIP function? Are they better off or not?

I still think I'm going to relook at PIP and uninsured motorist insurance, even if the states pulls the requirement to not have it as a requirement.

Insurance should be looked at, as protection for youself ;)

You're mixing up a lot of different coverages in your question/discussion.

Your BI coverage kicks in to pay OTHER parties (not you) that are injured due to YOUR negligence. You are supposed to have BI coverage but a lot of people don't.

UM coverage kicks in if you are injured, and the other party is at fault, but has no BI coverage (you get paid by your own coverage). UM has never been mandatory but it protects you.

PIP I explained above. You are incorrect as to when PIP kicked in in your example. Your PIP would kick in immediately for medical bills and lost wages. PIP also had a "tort threshhold" that was supposed to prevent law suits for minor injuries. You were supposed to be able to sue the at fault party if the injuries were serious. That part never worked because the attys got around it in various ways.

Insurance companys did not like PIP as it was set up because it invited a lot of fraud, and never worked the way it was supposed to.

ralanprod
09-12-2007, 11:42
The whole change is just a sham to shove expense from one insurance company (auto) to another (medical).

Sure, your auto rates may go down (there is still debate on that one). However wait until it is time to renew your health insurance policy - if you are lucky enough to have one that is. *POOF* there goes your "savings".

Millions of dollars were spent by the auto insurance companies to push this through. Are we supposed to believe they did that for OUR benefit?

They wrap this pig up in a pretty dress called "saving the customers money", and parade it around like it's Cindy Crawford.

We should find out how much better the auto insurance lobbyists pay than the health insurance lobbyists.

I bet Marco Rubio could tell us.

J T
09-14-2007, 18:31
The big issue the auto insurance companies have with PIP is fraud. Once again, the state caves in to business interests with big checkbooks instead of dealing with the issue properly (prosecuting and jailing perpetrators of fraud).