The following are the changes that are being requested by the MMA from the Division of Insurance
stay tuned for progress details....
MMA Insurance Committee members
Betsy Lister, Paul W. Cote, Peter Ianniciello, and Wendell Davis
In a June 13, 2003 letter to the Auto Insurers Bureau and Division of Insurance chief legal counsel, Betsy Lister outlined Class Rating of Operators, Class Rating of Motorcycles, Territorial Rating, Guest Passenger Coverage, Anti-theft Coverage, Multi-vehicle discounts, Increased Medical Payments Coverage (up to $50K), Property damage limits, Rental and towing coverages as unfair, discriminatory and excessive on rates.
In response, the Auto Insurer's Bureau General Counsel replied by letter of June 19, 2003 advising the subcommittee had been set up and would be seeking the MMA's advice.
The following is an overview of these issues. Additional documentation is available upon request to Paul W. Cote, Legislative Director of the MMA, P.O. Box 516, Amesbury, MA 01913.
1. Class Rating of Operators: Currently all motorcycle operators are classed together. More experienced operators should pay less. At the present time, absent other merit rating surcharges, a newly licensed operator of a motorcycle is classified the same as someone with over 20 and 30 years experience. This is unfair and discriminatory, and leads towards excessive rates being paid by the experienced operators.
2. Class Rating of Vehicles. Currently, motorcycles are rated by four categories, by their engine size (cc) rather than by type or model. The engine size classification for motor vehicles was revised in the early twentieth century. This is unfair and discriminatory, and leads towards excessive rates being paid by thousands of consumers.
3. Territorial Rating. Two 'territories' exist for rating motorcycle premiums, while 27 'territories' exist for Motor Vehicles. One territory consists of seventy-one (71) cities and towns, the other territory the remaining communities in the Commonwealth. This is unfair and discriminatory, and leads towards excessive rates being paid by consumers.
By way of example of the above three (3) items, (absent any other surcharges) a 47-year old experienced owner/operator of a 2002 Suzuki Intruder Volusia (cruiser) 800cc, living in Amesbury, pays the same premiums as an 19-year old inexperienced owner/operator of a Sportbike (1000cc) living in Yarmouth or Hingham, Natick, etc. (
4. Guest Passenger Inclusion/Exclusion: Currently under Part 5 of the Optional Coverages, on motor vehicles the guest passenger is included. On motorcycle policies, it is excluded unless specifically requesting that coverage be included. Separate rates exist to include/exclude quest passengers on motorcycles. As most motorcyclists have motor vehicles, this 'exclusion' of guest passenger coverage unless requested on their motorcycle policies is misleading, confusing, unfair, discriminatory.
5. Anti-theft Discounts. Prior to the MMA's request last year, no 'anti-theft' discount was provided to motorcyclists as motor vehicle coverage allowed. Last year the Division approved a discount for a 'lo-jack' type device for motorcycles, while no such product exists. Discounts for alarm systems that cut off or bypass the ignition and have an audible alarm should be given a 15% discount on Part 9, Comprehensive Coverage, as other motor vehicles. To exclude this coverage to motorcyclists is unfair, discriminatory, and leads to excessive rates.
6. Multi-vehicle Discounts. When these discounts became available in the early 1970's, motorcycles were excluded due to most consumers taking them off the road at the end of the season and putting them back onto their polices at the start of the next season. Any 'discount' would be lost in the transactions. However, in 2002, more than 75% of the 126,000 motorcycles were registered year round. Many due to consumer loans requiring full coverage year round; others for the convenience of not having to re-register and re-insure each year. For motorcycles registered year round, not allowing this 'multi-vehicle discount' is unfair, discriminatory, and leads towards excessive rates.
7. Optional Medical Payments. Prior to the MMA's request last season, only $5,000 in medical payments coverage was available to motorcyclists while $100,000 was available to motor vehicles. In 2003, the Division approved coverage limits up to $25,000 for motorcyclists. We seek to have this amount increased to up to $50,000 for 2004. As an 'optional coverage,' if a consumer can afford to pay premiums for higher coverage limits, it is unfair and discriminatory not to allow such an option, merely because it’s a motorcyclist.
8. Property Damages to Others. Currently motorcyclists can only purchase Part 4 limits up to $100,000 while motor vehicles can purchase up to $200,000 in this liability coverage. It is unfair and discriminatory to believe a motorcycle cannot cause more than $100,000 in property damage to another. Since mandatory limits of only $5,000 are required, should a consumer motorcyclists choose to purchase up to $200,000 in Part 4 coverage, it should be available as it is to other motor vehicles.
9. Optional Rental and Towing Coverage. Presently, under Part 10, Substitute Transportation, the $15 and $30 per day limits are wholly inadequate for rental of motorcycles. Limitations of $75 to $125 per day, with "Maximums" of $1,500 to $3,000 should be calculated and rated. No Optional Part 11, Towing and Labor coverage exists for motorcycles. This is unfair and discriminatory.
UPDATE!!
*****I've been informed that the subcommittee that will be working on revamping the rules and regulations governing Motorcycle Insurance will be meeting at the end of September, and I've been invited to be present at the meeting.