Some people are of the opinion that the requirements of coverage which are mandatory in Illinois should change after they have remained stagnant for more than 20 years now. However, the insurance industry begs to differ because a higher minimum for car insurance only means there will be more motorists who would venture out without a car insurance. On Tuesday, it was the opinion of the insurance industry that was chosen over the other argument as the House Insurance Committee rejected the Leitch’s House Bill. The bill had aimed to increase the liability coverage that must be possessed by Illinois motorists.
Currently, motorists in Illinois are required to have about $20,000 of insurance in order to cover the injury to another person, due to their fault. The coverage amount is $40,000 if more than one person is injured. The insurance amount is $15,000 for property damage. These numbers would have been hiked to $100,000, $300,000 and $100,000 respectively, which was a substantial hike. The insurance lobby was quite impressive. The bill itself was prompted by a person whose friend was recently injured in an accident that also killed another person. The guilty driver though only possessed the minimum coverage which wasn’t good enough to cover the medical bills. According to Leitch, the family of the injured and the dead deserved better treatment.
The argument of the insurance industry is that the number of uninsured drivers would shoot up resulting in an increase in the probability of accidently involving uninsured drivers. Insurance premiums would go up with increased coverage, which will simply prompt a lot of people on the borderline to drop their coverage. With a significant increase in coverage, the premium hike would also be steep which is what will prompt the move from many motorists, as per the concern held by the insurance industry.
The mandatory insurance came into effect in Illinois way back in 1990 but the requirements for coverage haven’t changed since then. Some people believe though that it is a better situation that everybody has some coverage rather than some people having greater coverage at the expense of others who don’t hold any coverage at all.
The support for the increase in coverage was also owing to the fact that health care costs have gone up significantly in recent times and the minimum coverage would hardly be sufficient to pay for the medical bills of the injured in case of an accident.
