Legislative Update

Utah Personal Injury Lawyers

Robert J. DeBry & Associates tries to be active in Utah legislative issues that may impact Utahns who are injured due to the negligence of others.

Every legislative session will have some number of legislative proposals that affect Utahns in the above regard.

In the 2010 Session, Robert J. DeBry & Associates weighed in on several legislative proposals. Those include:

  1. SB 62--Changes to Uninsured Motorist and Underinsured Motorist Law

    This bill which was passed by the Legislature will have a significant impact on how insurance companies deal with their own customers when it comes to uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist claims. In the event a customer cannot resolve his/her claim with his own insurance company, the customer can invoke specific statutory procedures which we believe will improve the relationship between Utahns and their own insurance companies. The new statutory procedures include the following:

    • The customer can now elect to have the claim handled through binding arbitration by statute as well as by many insurance contracts.

    • A customer shall provide a demand package of information to his insurance company within 30 days of demanding binding arbitration or filing a lawsuit. This package should include the following:

      1. A written demand for a specific monetary amount to resolve the uninsured or underinsured motorist claim.
      2. The factual basis to support the dollar demand amount, along with supporting documentation for any such demand.
      3. A written statement which would include a list of all health care providers who provided health care services to the covered person for a period of five years before the accident.
      4. The identity of all health insurers for which the covered person submitted health care claim forms for the five years before the accident.
      5. A list of employers for which the customer has worked in the five years before the accident—this is only required if a lost wage claim is being made.
      6. A designation of whether the customer is covered by state or federal lien holders, such as Medicare or Medicaid.

    • The insurance company shall have a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days from the date of the demand package, to respond to the specific dollar demand amount. If the insurance company and the customer cannot agree, the insurance company will immediately pay the amount it offered. The dispute is then arbitrated or resolved through trial.

    • If the final award obtained through arbitration or litigation is greater than the average of the covered person’s initial written demand and the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier’s initial written response, the carrier shall pay the difference between the company’s earlier offer and the ultimate award. The insurance company will be required to pay the entire award, even if the award exceeds the policy limits set forth by contract. The Legislature did put a ceiling of $15,000, over the policy limit, on such an award. The insurance company would also be required to pay specific costs associated with the arbitration or trial process.

      This new statutory process would call for insurance companies to pay to their customers the insurance company’s offer early on, rather than after the arbitration/trial award is entered. We believe this will help customers who have suffered substantial medical bills and/or lost wages because of the accident.

    The sponsors of this legislation were Senator Stephen Urquhart and Representative James Dunnigan. We believe this is a very useful measure and will help both the insurance industry and Utahns in the future.

    The above is a simplified summary of this legislation. Robert J. DeBry & Associates believes the same will be very helpful. However, the procedure is somewhat complicated. The lawyers at Robert J. DeBry & Associates can guide their clients through this process and make best use of this new legislative option.

  2. SB 105 (31A-22-321)—Increased Arbitration Ceilings

    Presently, Utah law allows an individual who has been involved in an auto accident to pursue that individual’s claim against the wrongdoer’s insurance company either through the traditional litigation, often involving a jury trial, or through arbitration. The arbitration option included specific limitations, including a ceiling amount of $25,000. This ceiling amount was in addition to the no-fault payback claim.

    This arbitration option has been allowed by statute for several years. Both the insurance industry and individuals involved in auto accidents have found this process to be very efficient.

    This legislative proposal, SB 105, increased the ceiling amount from $25,000 to $50,000. By increasing the ceiling amount, Utahns that have suffered larger damage claims can now make use of the arbitration process, rather than taking their dispute through the trial process. Importantly, the option to take a claim through arbitration rather than trial is made available only to the injured party, rather than to the insurance company.

    There can be a lot of reasons why a particular claim might be taken through arbitration rather than through a trial. The lawyers at Robert J. DeBry & Associates can provide you good input as to the advantages and disadvantages of each option and when one should be chosen over another.

  3. SB 70--Liability of Owners of a Vehicle When a Minor Child Causes the Accident

    SB 70 was a legislative proposal which modifies earlier Utah law regarding when an owner of a vehicle might be responsible for the negligent conduct of a driver who is under the age of 18 years.

    The earlier law made the owner of a motor vehicle responsible for the negligent conduct of a permissive driver if the driver was under the age of 18 years. The rationale behind this law was to make owners of vehicles cautious about loaning their keys to young drivers. The policy behind this law was to encourage responsible oversight of young drivers.

    SB 70 changed this law. Under this legislative proposal, as long as the owner of the vehicle had insurance on the vehicle the owner loans to the minor driver, the owner will not be responsible for the minor driver’s negligence.

    Robert J. DeBry & Associates understands that the old law could be argued to be unfair to owners of motor vehicles. We understand that the owner cannot always be present when a young driver uses a motor vehicle. Robert J. DeBry & Associates understands that, under certain circumstances, even with the owner’s best oversight, young drivers can make bad mistakes and cause severe injuries. However, Robert J. DeBry & Associates was concerned that a young driver can cause devastating injuries to innocent individuals and the injured parties will have no recourse beyond available insurance coverage. That is, a young driver would normally have no assets or ability to cover the losses the young driver causes. Nonetheless, Robert J. DeBry & Associates certainly understands the concerns of the Legislature in passing this legislation.

  4. SB 225

    Utah law presently allows insurance companies to arrange with a customer’s family to exclude one family member from the policy, but nonetheless continue to provide coverage to the remaining family members. This excluded driver provision was designed for families that may have a member who has a poor driving record. Instead of canceling the entire family, the insurance company can agree with the remaining family members, to exclude one of the family members from the policy. The earlier Utah provision required that the insurance company and the family find replacement insurance coverage for the driver to be excluded before such exclusion was effective. However, if the driver to be excluded has lost his or her license, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the excluded driver to locate substitute insurance coverage. This prevented the excluded driver policy from being used in many circumstances. This legislation allows the exclusion to go forward, even if the driver to be excluded cannot locate substitute insurance, if, and only if, the excluded driver does not have a license.

  5. HB 93

    The public policy in Utah is to have all people in motor vehicles wear safety belts. However, in the event someone is injured in an accident when not wearing a safety belt, the fact that the individual was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident cannot come into evidence in a personal injury trial. The public policy behind this rule is that it is difficult for experts to really know what injuries would have been lessened or made worse if a person were wearing a seat belt, rather than not wearing a seat belt. There are many ways a person can be injured when wearing a seat belt, and many ways a person can not be as badly injured if they are wearing a seat belt.

    HB 93 extends this same public policy to motorcycle helmets. In the event a motorcycle driver is not wearing a helmet at the time of an accident, the use or non-use of a helmet cannot come into evidence in the later personal injury trial. The same rationale extends to helmets as it does to seat belts.

    HB 93 also affirmatively encourages motorcyclists to wear helmets. In the event a motorcyclist is given a traffic ticket, a reduction in the ticket cost will be provided if the motorcyclist was wearing a helmet.

Robert J. DeBry & Associates would like to thank members of the Legislature for their tireless effort. Utah has a part-time Legislature. However, over the years, this has become a full-time task for those Utahns serving in the Legislature. These individuals give up incredible amounts of their time, energy and resources, to represent their fellow Utahns. These legislators are given a herculean task to absorb, debate and vote on the enormous amount of legislative proposals filed each year. Robert J. DeBry & Associates appreciates the hard work of our Legislators.

Contact Us Today