Hausmann-McNallly urges our readers to take all sensible precautions, but hopefully have some fun too.

The fun of Halloween is to step into the scary unknown. We test our bravery against strange noises and sights, creatures and characters we would never see any other time of the year. Facing down a warty witch or creepy clown for the first time is a right of passage in many places. Let’s admit…it is fun to be scared (if you know you are safe).

Warnings for Halloween safety generally fall into three categories:
•    Dangerous treats, razor blades in apples, poison candy
•    The hazards posed by costumes which make seeing difficult and the excitement, which causes kids to forget about traffic and safety rules
•    Perverts who might use Halloween as an opportunity to hurt kids

It is impossible to predict where a danger might come from, but generally parents who talk to their kids about safety and keep an eye on the action will have a better outcome. If you just turn the kids loose in a neighborhood, you are likely to receive back a frazzled, overexcited kid on a sugar high. Some parents let their younger kids trick or treat, but stand back at a discreet distance so they can observe where they go and who they interact with. Older kids would rather die than go with their parents, so set strict limits on where and how long the evening goes on. Parents might have to insist that only wrapped treats are consumed, but that will depend on the safety of the neighborhood and the individuals who give out the treats.

Traffic can be problematic. Adults may be driving home from parties where they drank too much alcohol. Trick or treaters need to be warned. And drivers need to remember that kids may be snaking through the streets in costumes that impair their side vision.

The warnings of not talking to strangers or going with anyone you don’t know is hard to enforce on Halloween, so parents are urged to be aware of neighborhood conditions, news reports and to network with other parents to ensure their children don’t  fall into the wrong hands. It’s all about caution. And then, it’s all about being dressed up as something else, scaring and being scared, lots of treats and excitement.

Take the precautions necessary and then have a great scary fun night.

It’s hard to believe insurance companies can be so short-sighted at times. The lawyers who work for the corporations have got to know some of the policies enacted by the companies are in a legal gray area.

That’s why it’s important to have lawyers fighting for your rights like the experienced personal injury attorneys at Hausmann-McNally S.C. In some cases, having a lawyer can be the difference between a client gaining tens of thousands of dollars and filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills.

One recent Hausmann-McNally client found this out firsthand. Our client sustained serious neck and back injuries when he was cut off by a left-turning car that pulled in front of him.

After the accident, the client and his wife applied for health insurance hoping the insurance company would help pay for his medical bills. Our client was completely upfront about his injuries to the insurance company and, despite the serious nature of his upcoming treatment, the company decided to take him on as a customer.

Our client was charged $1,000 a month for his insurance, not cheap by any means. Somewhere along the line, however, the health insurance company decided they did not like this arrangement with our client. The company inexplicably revoked all medical payments it made to our client’s doctors and hospital.

The health insurer claimed that our client did not inform the company about his pre-existing injuries when he signed up for coverage. This was not accurate. Hausmann-McNally took the health insurer to court, and after medical bills were paid, our client was awarded $50,000 in “bad faith” compensation because the insurer broke its contract.

The Hausmann-McNally attorney said that the insurance company’s actions were “unheard of,” and that he had never before seen an insurance company withdraw payment to a hospital.

“Our client paid good, hard-earned money for his insurance,” Hausmann-McNally declared. “For this insurance company to try and pull a stunt like that was outrageous.”

This $50,000 was on top of the $100,000 our client had already received from the offender’s auto insurance company. Had the victim not hired Hausmann-McNally S.C., he could have actually lost out on money he was entitled to.

That is why if you have been in an accident, you should call the Law offices of Hausmann-McNally at 800-227-6699 for a free consultation. Our staff is friendly, professional and ready to answer any and all questions.

Many car commercials tout the safety-oriented nature of the automobile’s company. The ads like to spout safety ratings and titles awarded to them by JD Powers and Associates.

However, this is just a good part of a marketing strategy of the auto corporations. But how much is reality?

Cost cutting is a big part of big auto. Competition is so intense and the line between failure and success so thin, that the companies have little choice but to continue to become ever more “efficient.” Unfortunately, efficient is a business term for reducing costs. When manufacturers take short cuts or skimp on materials, it can put people’s lives at risks.

If faced with the choice of saving the company money or improving safety features, most companies will…well, take a look at the evidence.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been awarded against major auto companies for safety defects in their vehicles. In some cases, it was proven in a court of law that an automaker knowingly ignored a safety defect in order to save a few dollars per car.

For example, Ford Motor Company callously conducted a cost analysis which concluded it would cost $70 million fewer dollars to ignore its gas tank and bumper problem than to enact a recall of the vehicle.

The 27 deaths caused by the ignored defects in the Pinto cost Ford millions of dollars and greatly hurt the company’s image.

Similarly, in 1999, General Motors was hit with a $4.8 billion verdict after Patricia Anderson and her four children were severely burned after their 1979 Chevy Malibu’s gas tank exploded during a collision. Once again, it was proven in court through office memos that this major automaker chose the bottom line over safety.

In Brian Chase’s book, “Still Unsafe At Any Speed,” there are dozens of examples of car defects that led to horrifying injuries, (not to mention huge settlements), for crash victims. Some are complex, jargon-heavy problems with the engine. Others are as simple as a cheaply made seat belt.

So, you may ask yourself how these cases affect you. Well, unlike other law firms, the experienced personal injury lawyers at Hausmann-McNally just don’t look at your injuries when evaluating your case.

We also look at how you got those injuries, a crucial, yet subtle art that many attorneys overlook. We investigate the accident and determine if the mechanical or design defects in either the plaintiff or the offending party’s vehicle could have caused—or contributed to the accident and/or enhanced the injuries. In fact, personal injury lawyers’ decades-long crusade against automakers is a large part of what led to safer cars.

Charles Hausmann, president of Hausmann-McNally, said personal injury attorneys have been leading crusaders in improving car safety. (Nothing gets car makers attention so much as a multi-million-dollar judgment in a personal- injury case.)

“When I take a look back at my career, one of the things I am most proud of is the improved safety in cars,” Hausmann says. “Sadly, a major reason car companies invest in safety is if they believe it will save them from personal injury cases in the future.”

“Today, if we can develop vehicles that park themselves,” Hausmann continues, “ we can certainly improve the fatality rate and the severity of injuries caused by automobile accidents.”

If you believe you were seriously injured due to the mechanical failure or design defect of your vehicle, or another person’s vehicle, call Hausmann-McNally at 800-227-6699.

Hot Coffee Official Trailer

Not only do they suffer this tragedy but then they discover when they seek the assistance of attorneys to obtain fair compensation for their losses and injuries, how unlikely it is that they will be justly compensated. Fair compensation for the victims’ losses can’t happen with the current Indiana statute limiting liability for public agencies and employees.  Indiana’s liability limits are totally inadequate to cover a situation such as this one.

The incident itself at the Indiana State Fair was horrific. Shortly before 9 p.m. on August 13, stage rigging collapsed in strong winds right before a Sugarland concert, killing seven people and injuring scores more. The combination of foreseeable summer weather, bringing with it strong but not unknown winds, failure to warn the audience despite having warnings from the National Weather Service and improper and below industry standard construction of the stage rigging combined to cause the stage rigging to collapse and injure many who were there simply to spend a warm summer evening listening to their favorite band.

The causes of the collapse, and the judgment of those who should have given evacuation orders, are still under official investigation. For its part, Hausmann-McNally is also investigating the installers, stage component suppliers, engineers, independent and outside contractors who worked on the stage design, installation and specifications for materials as well as the State and Fair Ground employees who failed to act as they should have to protect the people they were responsible for on the Fair grounds.

The State of Indiana has an indefensible position in terms of the caps on payments it has put into place. Thanks to the Indiana State Legislature, those injured and those who lost loved ones will probably never receive adequate compensation for their losses and injuries.  This is because no matter how many are injured or killed by State action or inaction IC 34-13-3-4 limits the government’s total responsibility to $5 million for the entire incident. It sounds like a lot until you realize the scope of the tragedy that occurred and all the lives that were taken or severely damaged.

In any state, in any situation, the $5 million cap is ridiculously inadequate to cover these types of catastrophic events. Unless personal injury attorneys find other sources of recovery, victims’ medical bills may not even be covered. Their loss, if not covered by any other source, could bankrupt them. Rodney Tucker, who heads the Hausmann-McNally Indianapolis office, is also looking into the constitutionality of the Indiana caps.

“This law limits its own responsibility in a cavalier fashion and states, ‘a governmental entity or an employee of a governmental entity acting within the scope of employment is not liable for punitive damages,’” Tucker says.

Did lawmakers lack the vision to anticipate a catastrophe as broad as this one at the Indiana State Fair or did they smugly set an unrealistic cap in an attempt to evade responsibility for the government’s actions and inactions?

The whole issue of caps on liability is just bad public policy. It is a creeping disease that seeks to control damages for the most seriously injured by fiat. States put a price on a human life and tragedy as easily as a piece of meat. The whole concept of caps supposes you can apply a one-size-fits-all rule to every situation. This tragedy may wake up victims and their families to the injustice of the caps. “Five million won’t begin to cover these losses and injuries, ” according to Tucker

In addition to the deaths, severe injuries reported include spinal injuries, head injuries, wounds and broken bones. While attorneys are searching to identify responsible parties, it would be appropriate for the Indiana legislature to review this law and change it to reflect reality.

“Of course, Hausmann-McNally will file lawsuits and we will pursue every possible lead that can achieve just compensation for our clients. That is what we do. It is just a shame that the state has chosen to make it harder on everyone.”

If you were involved in the August 13 incident and do not yet have representation, or know someone who was there, please let them know our firm is already working hard for several clients. We are also interested in interviewing anyone who was a witness to the event.

Call Hausmann-McNally at 800-227-6699.

It’s a time when kids are getting ready for school, and when parents drop their children off at college for the first time.

It’s also a good time for adults to plan their fiscal budgets for the end of the year. With the holiday season just a few months away, families are already saving up so this Christmas can be a special one for the kids.

There are some things that no one should save on, though. Take car insurance, for instance. Many companies advertise about having the lowest car insurance rates in America. Whether they claim to be able to save you $400, or 15% with a 15-minute phone call, there seem to be a lot of opportunities to save some money.

However, insurance is one thing you should think about upgrading, not downgrading.

Despite their television commercials that suggest insurance companies exist to save you money, these corporations will fight you tooth and nail on the smallest of claims, as well as omit crucial information that could lead you to buy the best valued auto insurance policy.

That is why Hausmann-McNally S.C., wants to help you make the most cost-effective decision when it comes to purchasing your auto insurance. First off, a little background on the business model of insurance companies.

Insurance companies make their money off of the lower liability policies, which are their highest-profit product. The vast majority of claims paid out are in the lower-limit threshold, so insurance companies charge a lot of money for basic packages, but barely anything to upgrade a policy.

According to computer quotes on the companies own websites, for instance, for a 58 year old unmarried Milwaukee man, the cost of upgrading from the most basic $50,000-$100,000 package to a $100,000-$300,000 package from Progressive Direct Insurance goes from $63.85 a month to $66.85, exactly three dollars.

For that same man, the cost of upgrading a $100,000-$300,000 Allstate policy to a high-end $250,000-$500,000 package costs an extra $12 a month.

If the 58 year old John Doe lived in Illinois or Ohio, the costs of the upgrades were a similarly affordable $6 and 9$ respectively.

These price increases run true for all demographics. Whether it’s an extra three dollars a month to upgrade her Progressive policy for a 46 year old married woman in Ohio, or a 21-year-old man spending an extra five bucks to bump up his policy from Progressive in Illinois.

The experienced personal injury lawyers at Hausmann-McNally recommend that you take a look at your current policy and see if it is worth your while to upgrade your policy. Too many times we have seen our clients’ recoveries stifled by their low-end insurance coverages. You can prevent this.

Make sure your policy has coverage for underinsured/uninsured drivers, above your state’s minimum liability coverage. That way, if you are injured by another vehicle, which does not have insurance or doesn’t have enough coverage, you will have a greater chance to be fully compensated. In fact, for drivers in pretty much any state, the cost to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra underinsured/uninsured motorist protections is a relatively modest increase in premiums per month.

Not opting for extra underinsured/uninsured drivers insurance is a very risky move. According to one study, 16 percent of drivers out on the road are uninsured. With there being millions upon millions of underinsured/uninsured drivers out on the road, there is a chance that you get in an accident not at all your fault, but still be stuck with the bill.

Insurance companies, in some states, do not automatically include all of these coverage types in your policy, so it is highly recommend that you thoroughly review your policies to make sure that you have adequate uninsured and underinsured coverages.

Here at Hausmann-McNally, we do not have a preferred insurance company. With the right coverage, nearly all insurance companies will suffice. But to recap, look a little closer at your policy and decide whether it is worth the extra few dollars more a month to give you and your family the desirable financial security you will need in case of a serious accident.

There are many excellent reasons to engage a personal injury attorney after you have been injured in an accident, the main reason being you will find yourself dealing with insurance companies, their adjustors and vehicle damage appraisers and their tactics which you will scarcely be able to believe.

Here is a prime example.

With profits nearing $5 billion and a law staff that could rival an Attorney General’s office, Allstate insurance is a formidable opponent to claimant and consumer interests. The company uses hardball tactics to try and force victims to accept its lowball offers.

The company’s motive for doing this is obvious: it cares more about its bottom-line than its customers and people injured by its policyholders.

Insurance is essential to any economy, ensuring that no single accident or personal disaster could financially ruin an individual’s life. An important and often times forgotten concept of insurance is that it is not only to protect the insured, but to compensate the injured victim. Compensation and restitution to injured victims and protection of the assets of insured policyholders are the only justifications for the existence of insurance companies. They do not exist solely for the benefit of their stockholders and profit generation, but to provide a very vital and crucial service in the functioning of the American economy. Again, that is to protect its insured from economic losses and to compensate its victims for economic losses.

The business model of insurance companies is that of group sharing of risk. Basically, the risk is low that you will get in a serious car accident or have your house burn down, but the potential financial costs of those incidents are devastating.

It’s for that reason we pool our money together through insurance companies so that everyone will assume a little bit of that risk. The insurance companies are licensed to conduct business under the assumption that they will treat their customers and the victims of its policyholders fairly and quickly.

The insurance companies are allowed to make a profit from the premiums that its policy holders pay under the assumption that they will provide protection for their insured and pay the just claims that their policyholders are responsible for. Again, payment of claims in a timely, fair and equitable manner is what insurance companies are supposed to do and what policyholders pay them for.

Third party assessments of Allstate have been brutal in this department.

Recently, the American Association for Justice named Allstate the worst insurance company in the United States. A study conducted by the non-partisan Consumer Federation of America (CFA) cited Allstate as a leader in “anti-consumer insurance practices.”

“Allstate is certainly not the only insurer pursuing these anti-consumer practices, but it has
been in the vanguard in developing and implementing many of them,” said J. Robert Hunter, CFA’s Director of Insurance and former Texas Insurance Commissioner and Federal Insurance Administrator.

How did a major insurance company earn this reputation?

With a vast number of claims it receives, Allstate has an anti-payment policy of low-ball offers, and uses the three “D’s”, (delay, deny, defend), to minimize payouts to claimants. Allstate uses the three “D’s”, delay payment, denying claims, and defending it in court, with the hope that the injured claimant gets frustrated or desperate enough to accept whatever lowball offer Allstate has offered. This strategy has proven hugely successful since Allstate has seen its earnings skyrocket after it implemented these practices in the 1990’s.

Another reason Allstate delays payments is its bank accounts. Everyday Allstate does not send out a check is another day of a victim’s money sitting in an Allstate bank account accruing interest and investment income. Over time this practice adds millions to Allstate’s coffers.

And then there is the McKinsey report. New York consulting firm McKinsey & Company was hired by Allstate to advise the insurance company on how it could increase profits. McKinsey reportedly recommended Allstate use “boxing gloves” instead of its “good hands” when dealing with filed claims, which led to the practices listed above.

According to the American Association for Justice’s report, Allstate agents were even given special incentives to keep “claims payments low, even if they had to deceive their customers.”

Adjusters who tried to deny fire claims by blaming arson were rewarded with portable fridges, said former Allstate adjuster Jo Ann Katzman in the report.

“We were told to lie by our supervisors,” Katzman said. “It’s tough to look at people and know you’re lying.”

One goal Allstate has in quickly trying to get victims to accept lowball offers is to prevent them from hiring lawyers. According to a 1995 Allstate training manual, research shows that for cases worth under $15,000, unrepresented victims recovered an average of $3,464 while victims who were represented by an attorney were paid $7,450.

That means even for basic cases, represented clients received an average of $4,000 more than non-represented clients. That is why Allstate does its best to get victims to sign a release before they get lawyers like the experienced personal injury lawyers at Hausmann-McNally S.C. to represent them.

Take a recent Hausmann-McNally client who had the unpleasant experience of dealing with Allstate. This 36-year-old woman was hit by an automobile running a stop sign, and her medical bills were expected to top $20,000.

Despite this, Allstate, the offender’s insurer, offered our client just $4,181. The lawyers at Hausmann-McNally were not impressed.

After a three day trial, a jury awarded our client $70,224. The difference between the two numbers demonstrates the value of hiring an experienced law firm like the personal injury attorneys at Hausmann-McNally S.C.

Allstate is one of the most influential insurance companies in the country, and it is changing the way that all insurance providers do business. An injured individual should not have to fight over the simplest of claims just because Allstate thinks it’s right to do so because it will add to their bottom-line profits. Insurance companies have an ethical and moral obligation to pay claims in a timely, fair and equitable manner.

That is what citizens have paid their premiums to have their insurance companies do and it is high time that Allstate starts protecting its insured by paying the claims that they’ve hired Allstate to protect them from. It is high time that Allstate stop the weaseling, chiseling, minimizing and delaying, and start trying to live up to its advertised “Good Hands” policy versus using those hands to economically strangle its claimants.

Are you in good hands????

Hausmann-McNally S.C. only hires the best and brightest lawyers. This strategy is crucial to giving our clients the best possible representation, leading to some of the highest settlements in Wisconsin.

Apparently, people are noticing. Attorney Michael Donovan, who has been at Hausmann-McNally since 1977, and is our firm’s senior trial attorney and a shareholder in the firm, has been named to the very exclusive and highly prestigious list of Wisconsin Super Lawyers multiple times in years past. Only five percent of Wisconsin attorneys are given the honor each year.

Donovan and his wife Jean were born, raised and educated in Dubuque, Iowa. He has been licensed to practice in Iowa and Wisconsin since 1973 and is excited about the firm expanding into his home state.

Donovan graduated with honors from Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa in 1970 and with distinction from The University of Iowa College of Law in1973.

Donovan’s expertise with dealing with insurance companies stems from the very beginning of his legal career. His first job as a lawyer was with the law firm Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, a Milwaukee firm that specialized in defense for insurance companies and other large corporations. In his four years at that firm, Donovan learned all the tricks of the trade when it comes to defending insurance companies, knowledge he now uses to protect client from insurance companies.

In his thirty plus years as a trial lawyer, Donovan has tried over 100 jury trials and has settled thousands more. His broad base of experience includes auto accidents, slip and fall, dog bites, sexual assaults, products liability, workers compensation and Social Security disability cases.

He has been involved in several key cases that have lead to groundbreaking decisions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In Brown v. Maxey he successfully argued for insurance coverage for punitive damages for a severely burned African-American client who was the victim of a careless landlord. He also argued for insurance coverage for a child sexually assaulted in the landmark case, N.N. v. Moraine Mutual. Recently he obtained a large verdict for a construction foreman who was seriously injured by a truck driver whose insurance company denied liability and refused to pay any damages.

Donovan is certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. His accomplishments have been recognized in Who’ Who In America, Who’s Who in American Executives and Professionals and Who’s Who in American Law. Donovan is also admitted to practice law before the Supreme Court of the United States.

His family includes Jean, his wife of 37 years, and two adult children, Jon and Jodi. He has been active in his community, coaching youth sports as well a holding civic positions.

Most recently, Donovan was recognized for his community involvement as the Attorney of the Year by the Career Youth Development, a community based social service agency.

Donovan said he was humbled by the Super Lawyer selection, and feels it was more of a reflection on the firm he has worked at the last few decades than on himself.

“I don’t do anything differently than all the other great lawyers here at Hausmann-McNally,” he said. “We all work our hardest to ensure that our clients get the best representation and service possible from our firm.”

Do you think it is a good idea to channel people’s unemployment benefits through businesses so they can create jobs and hire those unemployed?

As a country in a deep economic hole, we need new ideas. The demand for fresh thinking has never been higher (or more scarce).

Arguably, THE main problem fueling the recession is unemployment. People don’t have jobs. Instead, they get limited unemployment benefits that barely cover their family expenses.

Hausmann-McNally S.C. president Charles Hausmann is calling for the government to give unemployment benefits directly to businesses to hire those collecting unemployment insurance.

Please respond to this article by clicking here and let us know what you think.

What’ s wrong with the outdated unemployment insurance model?

• Unemployment benefits are expensive. As a nation, we spent $109 billion on federal unemployment benefits between fiscal 2008 and 2010…and billions more at the state level. The average length of unemployment is at an all-time high of 37.1 weeks According to Bureau of Labor statistics. Many of those receiving unemployment benefits live paycheck-to-paycheck along with mounting bills, the prospect of foreclosure and the depression that comes with losing a job and career. Nationwide, the average amount of money paid out to the unemployed is $295 per week.
• While no one is questioning the need for this type of benefit, taxpayers are not getting any return on their investment. The “investment” does nothing to advance our nation’s productivity. Nothing gets made, developed, fixed, solved or created by those collecting the benefits.
• Unemployment is demeaning and emotionally harmful to the large majority of Americans who want to earn a paycheck. It is simply not good for our morale.

Hausmann asks, why not just give businesses the unemployment funds directly and watch as the unemployment rate dips dramatically?

His idea is that instead of a laid-off worker receiving $590, (the average nationwide unemployment payout), every two weeks from the government, a business would receive that money and use it to hire and pay the same unemployed worker. That business would (according to the Hausmann model) pay their new worker an extra 25-50 percent on top of the unemployment wages, thereby adding its own money to the economy.

The government would contribute the benefit for a year, but the business will be obliged to keep, and pay for, the worker for an additional six months after that.

Besides pouring money to the economy, this plan would immediately increase job growth. Employers would scramble to create jobs knowing that the government was footing most of the bill. An added benefit is that there will be more money in the unemployment fund through taxes on the new workers’ wages.

There would have to be strict rules and penalties, Hausmann notes, to prevent businesses from abusing the benefit—like firing someone so they can hire a new, subsidized worker. The fines for violating this policy would have to be stiff enough to scare off any potential fraud.

The best thing is that the cost to taxpayers would be zero. The Hausmann Plan merely re-directs benefits, does not create new ones. Hausmann says that by spending the same money we already are, we could reduce unemployment and pair workers with employers in the hopes that many of these jobs would turn into permanent positions down the line. “What have we got to lose?” Hausmann says. In no way is he advocating dropping unemployment benefits. He just wants to see them going to something that would produce long-term benefits, not just a bandaid for families in trouble. And, he feels that working is better for Americans than lengthy periods of unemployment that can result in lost incentive to return to gainful employment.

“Tens of billions of dollars are already being spent on unemployment benefits without any productivity being required by the unemployed, so why not just apply the money already being used to this idea?” Hausmann said. “The United States is more than $14 trillion in debt, and new courses of action need to take place.”

This plan encourages support from all political ideologies, he said. It takes money out of the government’ s hand and gives it to the private sector to increase jobs. Unemployed folks get the chance to make a contribution to society while still getting help from the government.

“Both financially and ethically my plan benefits all Americans.”

“We need new ideas so we can give our neighbors their identity, dignity and self-sufficiency back,” Hausmann said.

We want your ideas on the subject of unemployment benefits. Please feel free to comment in the marked section under this article if you would like to weigh in. Bad idea? Great idea? Have you been unemployed? Tell us what you think? We are planning to forward responses to legislators to see if we can inject some energy into the creative problem solving we so desperately need.

Attorney Charles Hausmann

Wisconsin not only has the best pro football team in the world—our beloved Green Bay Packers– it also holds another, less prestigious, distinction. The state now leads the nation in driving a pro-corporate and anti-consumer insurance agenda. The state’s “Truth in Auto Insurance” bill was repealed by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and replaced by Assembly Bill 4, which will benefit insurance companies to the detriment of people who drive cars, trucks and motorcycles.  These changes will likely affect people all across the U.S. as the political influence of the insurance lobby is showing up in new state rules governing auto insurance.

Here are key changes:
The changes in Wisconsin law, scheduled to go into effect on November 1, 2011, are supposed to enable the auto insurance consumer be able to buy cheaper insurance. They do this by lowering the liability insurance limits that people must carry. But in effect, the law enables insurance companies to sell their most profitable product (the lower-limit policies) and steers consumers away from more sensible and reasonably priced policies. In essence, the government is encouraging you to purchase an inferior and inadequate product.

The mandatory minimum liability limits on automobile insurance policies were reduced from $50,000 -$100,000* to $25,000-$50.000. (*The first number indicates the limit of how much one victim could receive from the policy per accident, the second number is the maximum amount per accident that can be paid out in the case of multiple victims.)

Think about it. How easy is it for one auto accident victim to have more than $25,000 in medical bills. How easy is it for a van load of people to rack up medical bills, lost income, and other damages of more than $50,000?  Those amounts are paltry and will leave your personal assets at risk. Where does the money come from if the insurance coverage is inadequate? It comes from the personal money and resources of the individual who bought the “cheap” insurance.  If there isn’t the money, or he goes bankrupt, the injured victims are further victimized.

Our research shows that insurance policies are MORE expensive at the lower-limit level
because consumers get by far the worst bang for their buck. That is because their lower liability policies are their highest-profit product.

For instance, for a 58 year old, unmarried Milwaukee man, the cost of upgrading from the most basic $50,000-$100,000 package to a $100,000-$300,000 package from Progressive Direct Insurance goes from $63.85 a month to $66.85, exactly three dollars.

For that same man, the cost of upgrading a $100,000-$300,000 Allstate policy to a high-end $250,000-$500,000 package costs an extra $12 a month.

These price increases run true for all demographics. Whether it’s an extra two dollars a month to upgrade her Progressive policy for a 46 year old married woman, or a 21-year-old man spending an extra six bucks to bump up his policy from Progressive.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage

If you are a victim in an accident and the other driver was uninsured—or underinsured—you were unlucky. Your medical bills and other losses may not be adequately covered, especially considering the fact the new law reduces required medical payments from $10,000 to $1,000. Often, there is no recourse, except to accept the devastating financial consequences. To avoid that problem, insurance companies provide coverage for both underinsured and uninsured motorists. But, under the new law, the required minimum coverage for uninsured motorist coverage was slashed from $100,000 to $25,000, and underinsured motorist coverage is no longer required. The new law only requires that insurers offer the coverage one time to the customer when the policy is delivered. The burden is on the consumer to make sure you have adequate coverage.

We urge insurance coverage purchasers to recognize that this new law is not in their best interest.  We urge you to shop with an eye to what makes sense in these times, with medical and other expenses that mount quickly in the case of a serious accident.

As of November 1, 2011, the bill also prohibits the practice of “stacking,” which enables owners of multiple cars to have their uninsured motorist coverage limits stacked one on top of the other in case of serious injuries. As an example, if you owned two cars and the uninsured motorist coverage was $50,000 per car, you would be entitled to $100,000 of coverage because you would add the maximum uninsured limits from all your uninsured motorist policies. It makes pure economic sense that you paid for two policies for two cars, and therefore should receive the benefit of two uninsured policy maximums.

Under current Wisconsin law, if a two-car family purchases uninsured motorist coverage on each car in the amount of $50,000, the amount of uninsured coverage is actually $100,000 because the family insures two vehicles.  Under the new law that takes effect November 1, 2011, regardless of how many cars you insure and how many premiums you paid for, you would only receive the benefits of one policy. To sum up, under the new statute, you lose and the Wisconsin insurance companies win. You pay for multiple policies, but only get the benefit of single coverage regardless of how many vehicles you insured and how many premiums you paid.

Hausmann-McNally S.C. disagrees strongly with this new legislation. Charles Hausmann, the firm’s president, said stacking ensures accident victims get enough money to pay off their medical bills, hospital costs, recoup lost wages as well as pain and suffering compensation. This new law is a terrible public policy that only protects the economic interest of the insurance industry and throws the consumer under the bus.

“This new bill dramatically reduces the coverage provided by auto policies and encourages people to buy the least cost-effective products they sell,” Hausmann argues. “Wisconsin’s elected officials should be protecting the interests of its citizen-drivers, not the insurance companies.”

It is not too late! If you want to contact your legislator to protest the changes in Wisconsin’s auto insurance laws, do it now. Although the new law is passed, Wisconsin’s lawmakers are at a crossroads on how to serve the citizens of the state. Many are themselves unaware of the consequences of these changes and how it will affect their constituents.

If you live in the other states where Hausmann-McNally practices personal injury law (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin), you need to be concerned. Review your own insurance policy and make sure you have adequate liability, uninsured and underinsured coverage. Make sure your own wealth and assets are not at risk because of what you believed were reasonable policy limits. And join movements that make state legislatures own up to the realities of the market and stop pandering to insurance companies. Consumers are in need of protection, not the insurance companies.

To see what a finance expert recommends for auto insurance coverage, go to:
http://usonlinebiz.com/article/Does-Low-Cost-Auto-Insurance-Equal-Low-Liability-limits-.php

Neither the above-mentioned website or Hausmann-McNally has any interest in further enriching insurance companies, but we felt that our associates have a right to the facts.