Uninsured motorist insurance; liability insurer relieved of costs of defending owner in claim. (HB93)
Introduced By
Del. Terry Kilgore (R-Gate City)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✓ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
✓ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Uninsured motorist insurance coverage. Permits a liability insurer to be relieved of the costs of defending the owner or operator in a claim involving property damage or bodily injury, including death, if the liability insurer makes an irrevocable written offer to pay the limits of its policy and notifies any insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage with respect to the claim. The liability insurer retains the duty to defend its insured. If underinsured motorist coverage is provided by more than one insurer, the cost to defend shall be assumed in the same order of priority as applies to payments of underinsured benefits. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Passed
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/04/2010 | Committee |
01/04/2010 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101035D |
01/04/2010 | Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor |
01/15/2010 | Assigned C & L sub: #2 |
01/19/2010 | Referred from Commerce and Labor |
01/19/2010 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
01/21/2010 | Assigned Courts sub: Civil |
01/25/2010 | Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (11-Y 0-N) |
01/27/2010 | Reported from Courts of Justice with amendments (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
01/29/2010 | Read first time |
02/01/2010 | Read second time |
02/01/2010 | Committee amendments agreed to |
02/01/2010 | Engrossed by House as amended HB93E |
02/01/2010 | Impact statement from SCC (HB93) |
02/01/2010 | Printed as engrossed 10101035D-E |
02/02/2010 | Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 0-N) |
02/02/2010 | VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/03/2010 | Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N) |
02/03/2010 | Constitutional reading dispensed |
02/03/2010 | Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor |
02/21/2010 | Impact statement from SCC (HB93E) |
02/22/2010 | Rereferred from Commerce and Labor (11-Y 4-N) (see vote tally) |
02/22/2010 | Rereferred to Courts of Justice |
02/23/2010 | Assigned Courts sub: Civil |
03/03/2010 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/03/2010 | Committee substitute printed 10105823D-S1 |
03/05/2010 | Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/08/2010 | Read third time |
03/08/2010 | Reading of substitute waived |
03/08/2010 | Committee substitute agreed to 10105823D-S1 |
03/08/2010 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB93S1 |
03/08/2010 | Passed Senate with substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/09/2010 | Placed on Calendar |
03/10/2010 | Senate substitute agreed to by House 10105823D-S1 (97-Y 0-N) |
03/10/2010 | VOTE: --- ADOPTION (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
03/10/2010 | Impact statement from SCC (HB93S1) |
03/22/2010 | Enrolled |
03/22/2010 | Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB93ER) |
03/22/2010 | Signed by Speaker |
03/24/2010 | Impact statement from SCC (HB93ER) |
03/25/2010 | Signed by President |
04/11/2010 | G Approved by Governor-Chapter 492 (effective 7/1/10) |
04/11/2010 | G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0492) |
Comments
A gift to the insurance companies?
Not at all. THIS IS VERY GOOD FOR INJURED PARTIES. This would prevent the current situation where a low coverage primary insurer tenders its limits, but is stuck defending the case for, in effect, the UIM carrier who has no incentive to settle a case and instead often does not even participate in the case until very close to, or at, trial.
So what you are saying is that injured parties of uninsured motorists will get compensation sooner than they do now?
That would be true in many instances...as it stands now, the UIM carrier gets a free ride with the other carrier defends the case, and has every incentive to keep its fist closed until very shortly before trial, then settle at the last minute.
Thank you for clarifying. It sounds like a good bill then.