Sometime ago, I wrote a blog article on the new
Code Section 38-77-250, which requires automobile insurance companies to disclose,
prior to suit, the limits of coverage pursuant to specific requests. Since then, I have had a number of inquiries asking two recurring questions.
-
What is the operative trigger for the statute – the date of the accident or the date of the request?
-
Do insurers even have to respond to requests for fleet insurance information?
In my opinion, it is the date of the compliant request that triggers the statute, not the date of the accident. In other words, if an accident happened in 2011 or at any time before the effective date of Section 38-77-250, an insurance company must provide the information requested, if the compliant request is after January 1, 2012, unless exempted from the statute.If you read the statute as a whole, the focus centers on a “compliant request.” Not every letter requesting the information complies with what the statute provides as the necessary steps that a plaintiff must do in order to get the information. Assuming, however, that a plaintiff’s lawyer has properly requested the information, then an automobile insurance company must provide the information as designated by the statute regardless of the date of the accident.
The second question has to do with a fleet policy. Fleet policies are exempt from the statute, but the question is, must an automobile insurance company at least respond to the compliant request? In my view, an automobile insurance company cannot ignore a compliant request along these lines, but it should respond to the plaintiff’s lawyer, enclosing a copy of the statute if need be, and politely decline to provide the coverage because it is exempt from the statute’s requirements. In other words, I would favor at least a reply to the request and would urge insurance companies not to simply ignore the request. For instance, the statute requires an insurer to reply to a non-compliant request and advise as to the deficiencies of the request. Don’t just ignore!
I suppose that either of these items above-mentioned can be taken to a ridiculous conclusion. For instance, a compliant request might be made for an accident on which the statute of limitations has expired. Though a plaintiff’s lawyer might be prohibited from filing suit, nevertheless, there is no provision in the act that allows the insurance company NOT to respond to a compliant request. My suggestion would be to send a reply, explain that the statute of limitations has expired and provide the information anyway. A response is what the statute, taken to its absolute logical [or perhaps, illogical] conclusion, requires.
