fishin' wrote:If you can't raise the rates aren't they capped?
No. It appears that the Texas insurance commissioner didn't exactly rule that the insurers couldn't raise their rates because of a cap, but rather because they hadn't given the new tort reform regime enough time. From the insurers' perspective, of course, there's little difference. From a consumer's perspective, however, I'm sure a cap would be much more reassuring than what the linked article describes, which appears to be, in effect, a temporary moratorium.
fishin' wrote:TX implemented a tort reform package that limits non-financial claims (I don't rememebr the exact term..).
There are various terms: non-economic or non-monetary losses, pain and suffering, "hedonic" damages, etc.
fishin' wrote:My understanding of it is that you can collect any amount that you can prove in actual losses (i.e. lost current and future wages, medical care costs, modifications that might become required for your house/car, etc..) but other amounts are limited to an amount set by their legislature (that amount is supposed to be reviewed every few years). I don't know if it is tied to the rate caps or not.
That's similar to a lot of states that have either imposed or are considering caps on non-economic damages.
