
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, February 5, 1991                   TAG: 9102050432
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: THOMAS E. ALBRO
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

NOT ONLY ATTORNEYS OPPOSE NO-FAULT

I WAS SURPRISED to read your editorial Dec. 3 that endorsed no-fault auto insurance for Virginia's drivers. You are a lone voice, and you are alone for good reason. Those who have seriously studied the impact of no-fault, or have been personally affected by it, agree it is a bad idea.

A bipartisan legislative committee studying automobile-insurance needs in Virginia has just declined to recommend no-fault insurance to the General Assembly as a means to make insurance more affordable and available. After hearings held across the commonwealth, and a day especially devoted to no-fault, the committee is convinced that no-fault cannot deliver on its promises to lower rates, speed compensation or "help the auto insurance dollar work more quickly and efficiently," as you speculate it might.

The most compelling testimony was provided by a young woman from the District of Columbia. She was injured by a negligent driver during the district's brief experiment with no-fault auto insurance and was further victimized by the system you endorse. She described her injuries and course of treatment; the costs fell $27 short of meeting her dollar threshold that would, by law, have allowed her to recover from the negligent driver.

Consequently, she had to look to her own insurer for compensation. Her own insurance company not only stalled for nearly four years before fulfilling its obligation to her, but paid only after she retained an attorney to help her obtain the benefits to which she was entitled - a cost you argue no-fault makes unnecessary.

In fact, even the insurance industry in Virginia has not proposed no-fault. Contrary to your report, it is my understanding the Farm Bureau has not yet endorsed the concept; it is merely considering and investigating it. An insurance-industry representative who spoke before the study committee offered only equivocal testimony. He stated that nothing suggests we in Virginia have a problem with affordability and availability of auto insurance. He also cautioned that the stability of the market is impaired when traditions are abandoned and market stability is inherent to good and fair insurance rate-making.

District of Columbia residents are not the only consumers who have come to regret the false promises of no-fault. Voters in one state in November resoundingly rejected no-fault auto insurance by 85 percent to 15 percent. Public Citizen, a noted consumer-rights organization that focuses on insurance issues, has said: "No-fault is really a synonym for no rights, as it allows the insurance industry to treat people like cars and injuries like dents . . . States have already tried no-fault, and had to repeal it because of rising premiums and inadequate benefits."

Yes, trial lawyers oppose no-fault auto insurance. We see the devastating effect it has on people already devastated by injury. Fortunately, we are not alone in our opposition. The people, when informed of all the facts, don't want no-fault either.

by CNB