Raising compulsory automobile insurance
minimum amounts: a case study from the United

Christopher J. Robinette, Dani Wachtel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33995/wu2019.4.5


This article discusses a decision both European Union Member States and states in the United States
must make: whether to raise their compulsory automobile insurance minimum amounts. The authors
review a case study from the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and conclude a proposed
increase in the compulsory minimum amounts should pass the legislator. The purpose of compulsory
automobile insurance is to compensate victims of automobile accidents. Due to inflation, the minimum amounts in Pennsylvania no longer compensate adequately. Moreover, the data do not support
the contention that an increase in the minimum amounts will cause large increases in premiums and
uninsured rates. The authors conclude that compulsory minimum amounts should be periodically reviewed, as they are in the European Union, and that arguments about large increases in premiums and
uninsured rates should be subjected to a careful review based on data.


Słowa kluczowe

compulsory automobile insurance, compulsory third-party liability motor insurance, minimum amounts of coverage


Pełna treść artykułu:



Barringer P.J. et al., Administrative Compensation of Medical Injuries: A Hardy Perennial Blooms
Again, “Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law”, 33(4) 2008
Cooper S.B., Pa. minimum driving insurance coverage is dangerously low, THE PATRIOT NEWS, Dec.
10, 2010, https://www.pennlive.com/editorials/2010/12/pa_minimum_driving_insurnace_c.html
Keeton R.E. and O’Connell J., Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim: A Blueprint for Reforming Automobile Insurance, Boston, Little, Brown 1965
Robinette C.J., Why Civil Recourse Theory Is Incomplete, “Tennessee Law Review”, 78 (2) 2011
Rowland Ch., Why the flight to the hospital is more costly than ever, Wash. Post, July 1, 2019, https://
Schwartz G.T., Auto No-Fault and First-Party Insurance: Advantages and Problems, “Southern California Law Review”, 73(3) 2000
Thomas J.E. and Robinette C.J., New Appleman on Insurance Law §61.02 [1], LexisNexis 2011