BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2589
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2589 (Bradford)
          As Amended  April 30, 2012
          Majority vote 

           INSURANCE           12-0        APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Hagman, Bradford, Charles |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Calderon, Carter, Feuer,  |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |Beth Gaines, Hayashi,     |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |Miller, Olsen, Skinner,   |     |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill,     |
          |     |Torres, Wieckowski        |     |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio   |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :  Requires the California Research Bureau (CRB) to 
          conduct a survey relating to underinsured motorist insurance 
          coverage (UIM) and report its findings to the Legislature.  
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Requires the CRB to survey other states and compare the key 
            elements of those states UIM laws with California law.

          2)Requires the CRB to report its findings to the Legislature by 
            December 31, 2013.

          3)Requires the CRB to include in its report to the Legislature a 
            discussion concerning the extent of disclosure to California 
            consumers about the operation of California's UIM as compared 
            to disclosures required by other states

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Defines "underinsured motor vehicle" as a vehicle that is 
            insured for an amount that is less than the underinsured 
            motorist limits carried on the vehicle of the injured party.

          2)Provides that the maximum liability of the insurer providing 
            UIM shall not exceed the policy limits less the amount paid to 
            the insured by any person or organization that is legally 








                                                                  AB 2589
                                                                  Page  2


            liable for the injury.

          3)Provides that the insurer paying a claim pursuant to 
            underinsured motorist coverage is entitled to a setoff of 
            amounts received from or on behalf of the operator of the 
            underinsured motor vehicle.

          4)Provides that uninsured motorist coverage and UIM must be sold 
            as one bundled coverage.

          5)Provides that uninsured motorist coverage and UIM must be sold 
            in the same amount of coverage as the liability limits to any 
            purchaser of an automobile insurance policy, unless the 
            policyholder waives, in writing, the right to buy this 
            coverage.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, between $25,000 and $50,000 to the CRB to conduct the 
          research, and minor absorbable costs to the Department of 
          Insurance to consult with the CRB.

           COMMENTS  :   

          According to the author, who has been pursuing changes to the 
          way UIM works in California, it is necessary to develop 
          additional information about how this coverage works in other 
          states where consumers may have access to better coverage.  
          Rather than pursue the substantive changes previously proposed 
          by this bill, and by AB 1063 (Bradford) of 2011, it makes more 
          sense to gather better information before proceeding to seek 
          changes to the way UIM works in California (as described below).

          There are three aspects of current law that operate to limit an 
          underinsured motorist claim in a manner that results in no 
          recovery, or a lower recovery, than might appear to be available 
          by merely looking at coverage limits as stated on a declarations 
          page of an automobile insurance policy.  First, the definition 
          of an "underinsured motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is insured, 
          but the liability policy limits on the vehicle are less than the 
          underinsured motorist policy limits of the injured party.  Thus, 
          if the two policy limits are the same, the at-fault vehicle is 
          not defined as an underinsured motor vehicle, and therefore 
          underinsured motorist coverage is not in play.  Whether the two 
          vehicles' relevant coverage is both $15,000, or $100,000, or any 








                                                                  AB 2589
                                                                  Page  3


          other number that is the same, there is no underinsured motorist 
          claim at all.

          Second, in a related but legally distinct provision, the insurer 
          that is providing first-party UIM is entitled to a setoff of 
          amounts its insured has received from or on behalf of an 
          underinsured motorist.  For example, if that at-fault driver has 
          a minimum limits policy providing $15,000 of bodily injury 
          liability, and the injured party has underinsured motorist 
          coverage of $100,000, the injured party has a claim against his 
          or her own insurer pursuant to the underinsured motorist 
          coverage for any losses above $15,000, but subject to the 
          limits.  However, the stated limits are subject to the setoff.  
          Thus, if the injured party had damages of $105,000, he or she 
          would recover the first $15,000 from the at fault party's 
          insurer, then $85,000 from his or her own insurer, but be out of 
          pocket for $5,000 because his or her own insurer is entitled to 
          a setoff of $15,000 that was actually received against the 
          stated policy limit of $100,000.

          Third, there are circumstances where a policyholder who has 
          purchased UIM might not get up to the stated dollar amount, even 
          combining the at-fault party's payments with a set-off amount.  
          If, for instance, there are multiple parties injured in the 
          accident, it is possible that the coverage limit will have to be 
          divided among the several people, and a driver could end up with 
          less than the total of the $100,000 of protection they thought 
          they had purchased.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086


                                                                FN: 0003986