Somebody tell Sonny to veto this sucker

Senate Bill 276 will result in increased automobile insurance premiums for Georgians and should be promptly vetoed by Governor Sonny Perdue.

The legislation backed by the insurance lobby and passed by the General Assembly takes away the state insurance commissioner’s authority of prior approval of most rate increases on automobile insurance. The only exception is minimum liability required by the state.

This means comprehensive, collision, uninsured motorist, medical payment and property damage coverage are subject to increases without oversight.

Automobile insurance premiums skyrocketed in the 1980s much like health insurance premiums are on the rise today. The issue swept Tim Ryles into the state insurance commissioner’s office in a hotly contested Democratic primary race against incumbent Warren Evans in the 1990 election.

At Ryles’ request, the General Assembly fixed the problem by giving the insurance commissioner regulatory power over rate increases amid predictions from the industry that auto insurers would leave the state in droves.

This did not happen! There are more than 200 companies writing automobile policies in Georgia.

Competition between the major players which include State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Georgia Farm Bureau and others is fierce. The system is working very well.

Georgians should take note of how Senate Bill 276 evolved from a harmless bill into a bonus for big business interests.

It passed the Senate in 2007 for the purpose of clarifying definitions and fine-tuning the law. It lingered in the House of Representatives for a year without action.

Suddenly, the insurance lobbyists and their trial lawyer buddies went into action on March 4 when a substitute bill passed the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.

I repeat, not the House Insurance Committee, but an obscure judiciary committee dominated by attorneys.

The committee substitute added language taking away the state insurance commissioner’s right to approve rate increases. This onerous substitute quickly passed the full House on March 6 by a vote of 141-3 and was immediately transmitted to the Senate where it was accepted by a vote of 43-10 within two hours.

Legislation doesn’t move that fast unless a deal has been cut and somebody thinks citizens are asleep at the switch.

They were right. We were asleep.

After several years of attempting to go back to the old system, the insurance lobby finally succeeded by teaming with trial lawyers and key legislators in a sneak attack on the public.

Following the vote, a disappointed state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine said, “Today the trial lawyers and big insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of Georgia consumers. If allowed to become law, this legislation can only result in higher auto insurance premiums for Georgia drivers.”

The way this legislation was handled leads us to some questions about money. A friend in the legislature once told me to “follow the money trail, dummy, and you will understand politics.”

A review of campaign contribution data provided by the National Institute on Money in State Politics (NIMSP) helps us see the picture more clearly. Their website is www.followthemoney.com. The same information is available on the State Ethics Commission website.

According to NIMSP, the insurance industry contributed $2,063,605 to Georgia Senate, House and Statewide candidates in the 2006 election cycle. Senate candidates received $453,128 and House candidates received $630,605 in contributions.

Ralph Hudgens (R-Hull), chairman of the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, received $55,131 from the insurance industry. State Farm gave him $4,000, and The Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia matched it with a $4,000 contribution. United Auto Insurance group and Allstate Insurance were also major donors to Hudgens.

Trial lawyer Tom Knox (R-Cumming), chairman of the House Insurance Committee, and a member of the House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee received $53,825 from the insurance industry including contributions of $4,000 from the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia, $3,100 from State Farm and $2,000 from Allstate.

Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle received $149,450 from the insurance industry in the last election cycle.. State Farm gave a whopping $10,500 to Cagle while smaller players like Safeway Insurance Company contributed $5,000.

An original sponsor of the bill, Senator David Shafer (R-Duluth), vice chairman of the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, fought for an unsuccessful amendment to kill the house substitute. He subsequently made a courageous vote against the bill despite having received $31,450 from the insurance industry during the last election cycle.

This legislation is about money — campaign contributions and higher insurance premiums.

Proponents of the insurance industry have contributed heavily to the campaigns of Georgia politicians. Some say they do it to buy access while others cite their interest in good government. The result is consumers getting screwed to the wall again.

I wasted my time writing this column and you wasted your time reading it.

Gov. Sonny Perdue received $187,586 from the insurance industry during the 2006 election cycle. This level of contribution doesn’t set the stage for a veto of the bill and will likely leave consumers waiting for the wreck to happen. I hope I am wrong.

Will somebody tell Sonny to step up and veto this sucker?

[Scott Bradshaw is a real estate developer, resident of Peachtree City and active in the community. He is chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Homebuilders Association of Midwest Georgia, a member of the West Village Impact Fee Advisory Committee, and a former member of the Development Authority of Peachtree City. His email is rand5474@bellsouth.net.]

login to post comments | Scott Bradshaw's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 1:46pm.

How many of you who identify themselves as "fiscal conservatives" and proponents of "small, limited government" have a problem with this legislation? Or, how many of you have a problem with something like a state elected insurance commissioner who is in charge of blessing the rates insurers can legally charge their customers?

OK, I know this is getting tough now,Smiling but how many conservatives feel that insurance companies should be able to charge any price they want to since America is a so-called free market economy?

To me, a person who is truly a conservative would answer that insurance companies should in fact be able to charge whatever premiums they feel like charging. Whatever the market will bear. What is the difference of an insurance commissioner with the power to deny insurance companies from setting the rates they want to and telling oil companies and gas stations that gasoline prices have to be OK'd first by the state oil commissioner(that's fictional...don't start googling it)? Hmmm?


rock78's picture
Submitted by rock78 on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 4:57pm.

Why do we stop with auto insurance?

Let's allow the government to dictate the cost of ALL goods and services!

If a customer has an accident - How DARE the insurer raise their rates! Are they in this business to make a profit, or what?


Submitted by bowser on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 7:37am.

One difference with regulating price changes for car insurance vs. other products is that you are legally required to have it.

I guess a "true conservative" would also want the state entirely out of the business of approving electricity rate changes?

In any event, this is yet another case of our GOP leaders under the Gold Dome trying to fix something that ain't broke with a "solution" out of some ideological playbook.

I realize the old yellow dog Dems weren't any prize hogs either, but these bozos waste more time on nonsense than I thought humanly possible...

rock78's picture
Submitted by rock78 on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 4:33pm.

How stiff is the competition in the electricity market? Do consumers have 200+ options for this need?


Submitted by swmbo on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 9:57am.

Suddenly, the insurance lobbyists and their trial lawyer buddies went into action on March 4 when a substitute bill passed the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.

I repeat, not the House Insurance Committee, but an obscure judiciary committee dominated by attorneys.

For those of you who don't know it, Matt Ramsey is an attorney on that committee.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 10:52am.

I never had much use for Dan Lakly....I thought he was too much of a conservative ideologue. Having said that, the late Mr. Lakly is looking like a friggin' SAINT compared to this new guy, Matt Ramsey. At least you knew exactly where Dan Lakly was coming from. Ramsey? I am not so sure.

Ramsey seems to have spent his entire time in the legislature currying favor with the Republican leadership. This nasty amendment to SB 276 came directly out of Ramsey's committee and is positively breathtaking in it's audacity. It states quite clearly that insurers can raise rates whenever they so desire and do not require the approval of the State Insurance Commissioner. This is sleazy backroom politics at its best...and there's Matt Ramsey in the middle of it.

I went on record in December as stating Ramsey would serve his developer constituents first and the people of Fayette county second.

I was wrong....it appears that Ramsey's priorities are 1) Developers, 2) Insurance companies and then finally 3) the people of Fayette county.

Did Ramsey ever release his final tally of campaign contributions? I suspect in the next election cycle we'll see $10K or more from Ramsey's grateful new insurance buddies.


Submitted by CuriousBob on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 8:32pm.

It wouldn't be so bad to have the insurance co. able to raise the rates were it not for the methods they use to charge us in the first place. Their lobbiest have been able to thwart most attempts to stop states from making it illegal to use credit scores to set rates. I really don't think that a person is a good or bad driving risk based on their credit score. Sounds to me that Insurance companies are just looking for a way to eliminate having to actually judge a person's driving record. It gives them one more way to raise rates.

Submitted by sageadvice on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 3:55am.

If one can't pay their bills, or owes too much money, then surely they deserve to pay more for their car insurance!

A lopsided logic, can't pay any more--so pay more--but I suppose they only want loaded customers!

The middle class and below don't deserve to have vehicles to drive anyway, they can't afford the gas, maintenance, and insurance. What with milk at $5 per gallon, bread at $3.50 per loaf, good meat at $12 per pound, tomatoes at $4 per pound, green beans at $2.50 per pound, and mad cow hamburger at $4 per pound, I expect us to see even more robberies of stuff not usually stolen!

It might be better to complain more about the above things, and the cost of health insurance, than auto insurance.

We have to eat and live.

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 9:58pm.

I really think being a lobbyist is akin to boinking your mother. There is no reason to link your credit score and your driving record...except...to make you insurance more...Thank the insurance lobbyist...Every group is feeding, sucking the life blood, out of the American worker till they have literally brought them to their knees!

Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 8:00am.

The correct website for the National Institute on Money in State Politics (NIMSP) is 'www.followthemoney.org'

Here's a convenient link:
NIMSP

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.