On Monday, the council gave initial approval to cutting insurance requirements in half. It will be up for a final vote at the Aug. 17 regular meeting, 8 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave. The purpose is to bring the local fees more in line with insurance costs in other municipalities.
The amendments would lower the amount required for damages to one person from $100,000 to $50,000 and from $300,000 to $150,000 for damages to two or more persons. The state statute referenced in the ordinance only requires $35,000 in insurance, but owners can take out larger amounts of insurance.
The state statute is NJSA 48:16-3.
48:16-3 Insurance; amount; criminal history record background check.
48:16-3. No such consent shall become effective until the provisions of subsections a. and b. of this section have been satisfied:a.The owner of the autocab shall have filed with the clerk of the municipality in which such operation is permitted, an insurance policy which shall be issued by an admitted insurance company duly licensed to transact business under the insurance laws of this State or a company registered to do business in the State, the policy providing for not less than $35,000 of motor vehicle liability insurance coverage or the amount of motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1972, c.197 (C.39:6B-1), whichever is greater, to satisfy all claims for damages, by reason of bodily injury to, or the death of, any person or persons, resulting from, or on account of, an accident, by reason of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such autocab upon any public street; and to satisfy any claim for damages to property of any person or persons, resulting from, or on account of, an accident, by reason of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such autocab upon any public street.Nothing contained in this subsection shall prohibit the owner of an autocab from obtaining any additional amount of motor vehicle liability insurance coverage from a company licensed outside the State of New Jersey.The consent shall be effective and operation thereunder shall be permitted only so long as the insurance policy shall remain in force to the full and collectible amounts as aforesaid.The insurance policy shall provide for the payment of any final judgment recovered by any person on account of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the autocab or any fault in respect thereto, and shall be for the benefit of every person suffering loss, damage or injury as aforesaid; andb.Each operator or driver of the autocab for which the owner thereof is seeking the consent to operate in a municipality has submitted to the performance of a criminal history record background check. The cost for the criminal history record background check, including all costs of administering and processing the check, shall be borne by the operator or driver of the autocab.A person shall be disqualified from operating or driving an autocab if a criminal history record background check required pursuant to this subsection reveals a record of conviction of any of the following crimes:New city legislation (deletions underlined.)
Sec. 9:15-36. Minimum amounts of insurance required. (a) The minimum amounts of public liability and property damage insurance required under Section 9:15-35 shall be in the following sums, or as provided in N.J.S. 48:16-3, as amended; whichever is greater:
For damages arising out of bodily injury to, or death of one (1) person in any one (1) accident. $100,000.00 $50,000.00
For damages arising out of bodily injury to, or death of two (2) or more persons in any one (1) accident. $300,000.00 $150,000.00 For injury to, or destruction of, property in any one (1) accident $50,000.00
(b) In the event any insurance policy provided under this Article shall lapse or be cancelled, the taxicab license shall be suspended. The owner of the vehicle shall immediately surrender the license to the License Bureau.
This Ordinance shall take effect after final passage, twenty (20) days following action or inaction by the Mayor as provided by law, or on override of the Mayoral veto by the Council, whichever is applicable in accordance with law, unless a resolution is adopted pursuant to N.J.S.A 40:69a181(b) declaring an emergency and providing that this Ordinance shall take effect at an earlier date.
--Bernice
Why is this being done? With medical costs going up and no local hospital why a reduction? The cost of an ambulance ride to a hospital outside of Plainfield is reported to be over $1000. Maybe in the past Plainfield erred on the side of the Public. Keep the Plainfield law the way it is.
ReplyDelete$50,000 for personal liability is ridiculous. $100,000 for personal liability is ridiculous. .Does the Council understand that this insurance covers the potential damages which arise to a person in an accident. If someone, for example, who is a family man, employed and young is killed because the taxi driver commits an blunder, or the vehicle is flawed, the maximum the victim's family can recover under the policy is $50,000? The personal liability policy limits should be increased to at least $250,000 for each incident, not reduced. Moreover, the premium differential between $100,000 and $50,000 is a rounding error in the total cost of operations.
ReplyDeleteBill Kruse
Someone needs to ask the question if this is passed - what impact will it have on the automobile insurance rates for Plainfield residents? Everyone knows actuaries compile statistics and uses them to calculate insurance risks and premiums. Will this change in the law raise the insurance premiums for Plainfield residents? The City Council needs to find out this information to protect the Public at large.
ReplyDeleteThere they go again ... dumb council making laws that they have NO AUTHORITY to do.
ReplyDeleteThey may in fact have the authority. That is the scary part. They don't have the knowledge. Their vanities and presumed wisdom prevent them from seeking wise council.
DeleteI would like to examine the "study" which demonstrates that taxi company insurance costs are less in "other cities". Reality or hype?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that such a valid study exists the question goes to relevance. Property taxes, for example, are substantially less in other cities, so following the "taxi model" our property taxes should also be reduced.
Bill Kruse
Why is the council pandering to the taxi owners? Taking a small savings in coverage rates over the well being of its customers is not a good idea. You want to lower a rate? Try PMUA or the TAXES!
ReplyDeleteI agree, Jeff!!
DeleteThey are some of the worst speed offenders.
ReplyDelete