The number of auto accidents in the
United States has decreased significantly since 1980 — falling by 17 percent
when measured by property-damage claims. But during that same period, according
to a recent study by the Pennsylvania-based Insurance Research Council, injury
claims resulting from those accidents increased by 33 percent.
According to the IRC, auto accidents dropped to 4.09 per 100 insured cars in
1998 from 4.94 in 1980. Bodily injury claims were reported up to 1.17 per 100
insured cars nationwide in 1998 from 0.88 in 1980. But the IRC study also found
that the injury rate has “recently shown signs of improvement.” The rate has
continued to decline from its highest point of 1.22 in 1995, according to the
study.
An IRC senior vice president, Elizabeth A. Sprinkel, cited safety measures —
safer car designs and better road conditions — for the drop in frequency of
auto accidents. She also mentioned the effectiveness of campaigns against drunk
driving.
But the increase in injury claims is a serious concern, said Sprinkel.
Injury
claims high in Rhode Island
And injury claims in Rhode Island are at a higher rate than most other states,
according to IRC statistics. Only Massachusetts (2.29 injury claims per 100 insured
cars), Louisiana (2.08 injury claims per 100 insured cars), and the District of
Columbia (1.95 injury claims per 100 insured cars) rank higher than Rhode Island
– which has 1.85 injury claims per 100 insured cars.
In a separate but related IRC report, entitled “Sprains and Strains Resulting
From Auto Accidents: An Analysis of Auto Insurance Claims,” suggests the involvement
of legal representation has a direct impact on bodily injury claims. The report
reveals that auto accident claimants with low injury severity who were represented
by attorneys demonstrated greater use of medical treatment compared to non-represented
claimants with similar injuries. According to the IRC: “Represented claimants,
on average, were more likely to seek treatment from medical practitioners and
had higher average numbers of visits to practitioners. Not surprisingly, the reported
medical bills incurred by represented claimants were higher, on average, compared
to those of non-represented claimants.”
Embracing inflation
In what may be yet another example of why insurance premiums in general remain
so high in America, the IRC reports that many Americans believe it is all right
to inflate insurance claims under certain circumstances.
According to the IRC, a significant number of Americans surveyed — 35 percent
— believe that it’s all right to exaggerate insurance claims. The respondents
agreed that it is acceptable to increase the amount of an insurance claim by
a small amount to make up for a deductible. Nearly one in four respondents (24
percent) said it is acceptable to increase the amount of a claim to make up
for insurance premiums paid when no claims were made. The IRC has been tracking
public tolerance for claims padding for many years. The 2000 results show fewer
respondents accept this type of insurance fraud than did in 1997, when the acceptance
level surged. However, the percentage of Americans surveyed who believe it is
all right to exaggerate a claim to make up for the deductible is higher in 2000
than in any year before 1997.
“Insurers have been making significant efforts to fight fraud,” said Sprinkel.
“While we have seen some improvement in recent years, it is still disappointing
that so many Americans still see this type of insurance fraud as acceptable.”
The results contained in IRC’s recently released report were based on a survey
conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide. The survey consisted of telephone interviews
with 1,000 men and women 18 years old and older conducted in February 2000.
Survey participants were selected to be representative of the population of
the continental United States. The survey also addressed attitudes toward class
action lawsuits and third-party bad faith lawsuits. In another IRC survey of
U.S. households, Americans support measures such as primary seat belt enforcement
and red light cameras that are designed to increase compliance with vehicle
safety laws. Eighty-nine percent of respondents supported some type of seat
belt law. Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents favored primary enforcement,
whereby police can stop a driver solely on the basis of not wearing a seat belt.
Forty-one percent of respondents favored secondary enforcement, which requires
police to have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing an occupant
for not buckling up.
