islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online

Search Everything in the Lowcountry and the Coastal Empire.

Minimum coverage increase for drivers long overdue

Drivers not at fault in an accident need more protection

Add Comment

State lawmakers should override Gov. Mark Sanford's veto of a bill to increase minimum liability coverage for South Carolina drivers when they return to Columbia this week.

The bill would increase the minimum liability coverage drivers would be required to buy to $25,000 for bodily injury for each person injured in a wreck, $50,000 for all people injured and $25,000 to cover property damage. The current requirements are $15,000, $30,000 and $10,000, respectively.

Lawmakers last updated the requirements in 1997, raising the $5,000 minimum for property damage to $10,000. The other minimum requirements haven't changed since 1974, according to Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Hartsville, a supporter of the bill.

Given mounting medical costs and repair bills, raising the minimums only makes sense.

Many South Carolina drivers already are footing the bill for those who don't have insurance or who are underinsured. According to the S.C. Insurance News Service, the average cost for uninsured driver coverage is $21 a year. Coverage for underinsured drivers is $40 to $60 a year. Such coverage picks up the tab for costs above and beyond a driver's policy limits.

Sixty percent to 70 percent of South Carolina drivers are uninsured or carry minimum limits, according to the Insurance Industry News Service.

A survey conducted by the News Service found consumers could expect a $32 to $100 a year increase, depending on the specific insurance carrier.

In Sanford's veto message, he cites three concerns about the bill: increasing automobile insurance rates, adversely affecting low-income drivers and reversing the recent trend in the decline of uninsured motorists.

"It should be the choice of the consumer to seek higher protection and reduce their own personal liability in the event of an accident and not as a result of government fiat," Sanford writes in his message.

But carry that to its logical conclusion and you have to ask why require insurance or set minimum coverage requirements at all?

You do that to provide some level of protection for those of us who do make responsible choices but are damaged by those who don't.

Sanford is joined in his concern that increased premiums would put more uninsured motorists on the roads by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

Robert Herlong, the association's vice president and regional manager, told the Charleston Post & Courier that some drivers would be forced to violate the law and drive without insurance because they can't afford the higher premiums.

But we suspect many of those drivers are already out on the roads uninsured as it is. That's where stepped up enforcement should come into play.

Sanford also claims the change will be a rewards system for trial lawyers. Increased coverage means increased opportunity and ultimately, increased rewards. He cites the fact that Mallory, who pushed for the amendment after a subcommittee rejected it, is the president of the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association.

That strikes us as a bit of a red herring. We're not talking large amounts of money here, either in terms of coverage or increased premiums.

Common sense says three decades is long enough to wait to increase minimum coverage.