A new law in Michigan allows automobile insurers to offer a premium discount to drivers 50 and older – if they complete a driver safety course. Rep. Mike Nofs, the state house member who sponsored the bill, said the legislation provides two benefits. The first is that it helps to heighten the safety skills of the drivers on the road. The second benefit allows those who take the initiative to keep their driving skills up-to-date to receive discounts on auto insurance.

The discount could be provided for three years after the completion of an initial or refresher “traffic accident prevention driver safety course.” The driver safety course will have at least eight hours of classroom instruction taught by someone certified by the entity offering the course. A refresher course has at least four hours of instruction.

The curriculum includes: effects of aging on driving; types of road signs; laws about proper use of a vehicle; crash avoidance and prevention; the effects of alcohol and drugs, including medications on older drivers; and interaction with different highway users, such as emergency vehicles, trucks, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Ironically, it sounds a lot like the course offered to speeding violators in lieu of a big fine.

Representatives from AARP and other organizations that advocate for older people supported the bill and are expected to encourage drivers who qualify to take advantage of the new law. Generally, automobile insurance rates start rising once a person reaches 65.

hose of us who remember when the Clintons stormed Washington 14 years ago as the newly inaugurated first couple will remember that their move into the White House occurred during a period of enormous good will and hope for this new generation of leadership – Clinton and Gore.

Also memorable from those days is the first principal issue that the new President took on – it was the health care mess in this country, and he handed it off to his wife to manage the project. Despite the good will and Democratic control of both houses, the effort to reform health care and health insurance for the poor hit a wall and the First Lady ended her role as lead on policy initiatives for her husband’s administration.

As she informally announced her Presidential candidacy for 2008 in late January, the first issue she raised was health care in the U.S. – now considerably more expensive and unavailable to one in six Americans. In her first public appearance since announcing her run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Clinton said she will once again embrace health care as a principal cause.

“I will be introducing legislation to make quality, affordable health care available to every child in America,” she told a roomful of reporters at a public health center in New York City as a girl clutched her hand.

The New York senator and former first lady said she and Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, would introduce legislation “in the coming weeks” to renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program so that families earning nearly five times the federal poverty level would be eligible to participate in it.

“It expands the program to millions of children whose families today cannot afford care,” she said. In addition, all employers and all families, regardless of income, would be able to buy into the S-CHIP program, she said.

China’s financial sector has been exploding over the last five years and can continue to expect much faster growth than that of the national economy in the foreseeable future, according to both Chinese and Western analysts. During the 10th Five-year Plan (2001-2005) period, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) posted an annual growth of 8.8 percent, while insurance sector saw an annual growth rate of 35 percent, exceeding financial sector’s 15.8 percent.

China’s per capita life insurance premiums amounted to 30.5 U.S. dollars last year, compared with the international average of 299.5 U.S. dollars, while the property insurance premium was 15.8 U.S. dollars, compared with the international average of 219 U.S. dollars. While the pricing structure may seem primitive at a glance, the product is not. Nor is the growth curve, which speaks to just how rapidly the Chinese version of capitalism is generating a vibrant economy.

Under the 11th Five-year Plan, China’s insurance revenue is expected to exceed one trillion yen (125 billion U.S. dollars) by the end of 2010, and insurance assets are expected to hit five trillion yen. “This may indicate that China’s insurance sector may enter a fast growth period, with a growth rate of more than 15 percent per year in the next five years,” according to a senior Chinese financial analyst.

The growing population, rising middle class and tax breaks would also contribute to the fast development, Huang said. Last year, 40.2 percent of China’s population was aged from 25 to 49, the group with the strongest purchasing power, while the 15 to 24-year-old group accounted for 16.5 percent of the population. The age distribution in China is going to guarantee continued growth of a young, increasingly educated and materially oriented populace.

For the uninformed, a “slow cat year in the insurance business means a year that had relatively few cat-astrophes.” Get it? The insurance companies got it, in the form of some impressive bottom lines. Nine-month 2006 results announced last week by the Insurance Information Institute and the Property Casualty Insurers Assn. of America show that insurers posted a $24.4 billion net gain on underwriting. That compares with a $2.5 billion underwriting loss in the year-earlier period. A $27 billion turnaround over a nine month period, thanks to those slow cats.

Third-quarter results also jumped, as insurers posted net underwriting income of $9.3 billion in 2006 vs. an underwriting loss of $15.2 billion during the third quarter last year, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck. That’s a twenty five billion dollar shift over a single quarter, and an excellent illustration of how volatile the property/casualty business can be.

However according to the trade associations who put out this good news, “The turnaround in results is benefiting insurance buyers as well, by stimulating competition and keeping rate increases at bay in most lines. ” Keeping increases at bay? What industry showing $26 billion in profits over 2006 should be in need of rate increases?

In addition, added the trade groups, “Insurers’ improved finances could hamper efforts to extend the federal terrorism insurance backstop scheduled to expire at the end of 2007.” This last item is the federal legislation that was passed following the destruction of the World Trade Towers which was designed to limit the exposure of property/casualty firms in the wake of an attack of that magnitude. One cannot help but draw parallels with the federal takeover of flood insurance and backstopping of crop insurance that allowed the insurance companies to take what they wanted and leave the rest to the feds.

Las Vegas casino owner Steve Wynn filed suit against Lloyd’s of London in January, months after he accidentally poked a hole in a Picasso painting he owned. The suit asks for payment on a $54 million insurance claim. Wynn contends that the painting, for which he paid $48.4 million in 1997, was worth $139 million because that’s what he’d agreed to sell it for immediately prior to damaging it.

The painting has been restored, but as a result of his clumsiness the sale of the piece did not go through. The restoration leaves the value of the painting at about $85 million, according to Wynn, because you can still see slight evidence of the damage under certain kinds of light. Wynn feels that Lloyd’s owes him the difference between the current value and the negotiated sale price.

“They’ve started to negotiate,” he said to a reporter, before quickly adding that the talks were not going the way he would like. “Their offer is ridiculous,” he said, although he refused to give specifics.

He attacked the insurance industry as a whole, saying it played “dirty tricks” and it was standard practice for insurance companies to delay responding to claims in the hopes of wearing down claimants, and getting them to settle for much less than what they were owed.

“Most folks that have insurance can’t afford the legal fees so they take what they get,” he said. “There’s only one way to stop this kind of thing and that is to go to court.” Steve Wynn – advocate for the common plaintiff.

In January of 2007 a new state law took effect in Massachusetts that requires health plans to provide coverage for prosthetic limbs The law also prohibits insurers from imposing annual spending limits specifically for artificial limbs.

The director of legislative affairs for the Massachusetts Society of Orthotists and Prosthetists commented that the law should end “woefully insufficient” coverage provided by some insurance plans.

The costs of prosthetic limbs vary widely. For example, an arm carries a minimum price tag of $3,000, while a body-powered above-the-knee prosthetic can cost as much as $52,000. The average cost of a prosthetic limb ranges between $10,000 and $15,000.

Proponents of the legislation said that some insurers restrict coverage of artificial limbs by imposing annual caps or limiting benefits to one limb per lifetime.

“In recent years we’ve seen more and more insurers reduce or eliminate their coverage” for prosthetics, the advocacy director for the Amputee Coalition of America, a nonprofit group based in Knoxville, Tenn. In a recent membership survey, the ACA found that 24 percent of its members had experienced reductions in healthcare coverage for prosthetics, and 4 percent had benefits eliminated altogether.

Massachusetts is the fifth state to enact a law mandating prosthetic coverage. In 2001, Colorado was the first to pass a so-called “prosthetic parity law,” followed by Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. California recently passed a similar measure, which will soon become law unless the governor vetoes it, according to the Amputee Coalition of America. This issue has become a cause similar to coverage for mental health problems, another area where health insurance companies have traditionally been cavalier about coverage.

Driving under the influence of alcohol has long been the scourge of public highways – and auto insurance companies. The liability issue in such instances has been ruled in some courts to fall to the source of the alcohol – in other words, the location where the consumption occurred if it occurred away from home.

Several states have passed laws called “Dram Shop Liability.” These laws make it possible to hold those who serve alcohol to an intoxicated or under age customer responsible for damage or injury. These laws also offer an injured person such as the victims of the drunk driver a method to sue the person who served the alcohol. Some of these laws include circumstances where criminal charges may also apply. “Social hosts” (anyone serving alcohol at a home gathering) also have some exposure to the risk of liability for alcohol serving.

Most social hosts will have liability coverage under their policy as long as liquor is not sold. Nevertheless, it’s worth a call to brush up on this issue if you are planning an event where alcohol will be served – particularly one where attendees may be not known to you.

Talk with your insurance agent about your liability insurance coverage and any exclusions, conditions or limitations your policy might have for this kind of risk an exposure. Appropriate liability insurance coverage is necessary. In some cases “special event” coverage may be available that will cover both liquor liability and other liability exposures specific to the event.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina ripped through the Southeast in 2005 and destroyed New Orleans, there has been a major battle between homeowners’ insurance companies and many of their policy holders whose homes were destroyed. State Farm is claiming that much of the damage was from water (flooding) instead of wind. Homeowners’ insurance covers wind damage, while flood insurance is a separate policy obtained through the federal government.

After losing one high profile law suit on this issue State Farm chose to settle another case out of court. The company chose to settle with a Mississippi plaintiff eight days after jurors awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to another policyholder, a couple who sued the insurer for denying their claim after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.

The plaintiff was one of hundreds of homeowners on Mississippi’s Gulf Coast who sued insurers for refusing to cover billions of dollars in damage from Katrina’s storm surge.

Katrina destroyed his house, leaving nothing but a slab. A federal flood insurance policy paid him the maximum $200,000 for the home and $80,000 for its contents. State Farm, however, refused to pay for an additional $263,190 in damage to his home and its contents.

State Farm and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not from water, and that the policies exclude damage that could have been caused by a combination of both, even if hurricane-force winds preceded a storm’s rising water.

State Farm is the defendant in the next four Katrina insurance cases set for trial in Gulfport. The first is scheduled to start March 12.

Since this story is out of Cleveland, it’s quite likely that the marketeers who came up with the idea know not what they hath wrought. Still, it’s worth recognizing the resurgence of packaged testosterone that sold a zillion records for the Village People back in the ’70s.

Health insurance company United Healthcare is counting on make-believe mountain climbers to convince mostly men who may be watching football games at bars or shopping at home improvement stores that buying health insurance is a good idea.

It’s a “guerrilla marketing” strategy the UnitedHealth Group Company, based in Minnetonka, Minn., is trying in Cleveland and Chicago, hoping for more direct contact with a target market of the working uninsured between 35 and 54. The new marketing effort relies on teams of people dressed as mountain climbers – bright red uniforms, helmets and other safety gear – to make a pitch to those without insurance.

The idea is to equate the safety equipment a mountain climber uses with the safety net provided by health insurance. The program is called Belay, a name derived from a term used in climbing to indicate a rope is secure.

In a campaign that started in mid-November and runs through February, marketing teams decked out in climber motif, including ropes, go to places such as sports bars, stadium parking lots and home improvement stores. They are promoting a health plan with premiums of $78 to $109 per month and a health savings account that could be used for deductibles.

Between the outfits and items the crews are handing out, such as bottles of water, the goal is to get people to come to them so that the crew members can initiate conversations about whether they have health insurance.

The Los Angeles Times has obtained sets of guidelines that the state’s four major health insurers provide to their insurance agents proscribing a set of occupations and medications that would preclude individuals getting coverage. The party seeking coverage would not be privy to the reason for rejection.

Blue Cross, Blue Shield, PacifiCare and HealthNet have private benchmarks for their insurance agents to take into account. All four health plans look at prescription drug use to decide to whom they will sell individual policies. Dozens of widely prescribed medications — including Allegra, Celebrex and Prevacid — may lead to rejection, according to the underwriting guidelines that the health plans provide to insurance brokers but not to the public.

PacifiCare and HealthNet include pyrotechnicians, crop dusters and stunt pilots on their lists of occupations that are ineligible for individual coverage. PacifiCare’s no-sell list also includes police officers and firefighters.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has proposed a bill that would extend coverage by creating a purchasing pool that would require participating plans to offer coverage to people with preexisting conditions or who are priced out of the market. It is probably news to many in the state legislature, however, that widely advertised medications are considered a pre-existing condition that precludes medical coverage.