Insurance bill offers protection to injured

By Bob Mercer
State Capitol Bureau
Published/Last Modified on Thursday, Mar 11, 2010 - 12:38:02 am CST

PIERRE — The state Senate gave final legislative approval Wednesday to a major change in South Dakota law regarding insurance payments to people who have suffered damages.

They would be better protected financially under the change, which was opposed by insurance companies.

Senators voted 20-15 for the legislation, SB 169, whose prime sponsor is Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown.

Advertisement


Senate Republican leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls tried to kill the bill but fell short on a 15-20 vote. Turbak Berry and Knudson are attorneys.

The legislation would adopt the “made whole” standard for South Dakota, which essentially means the insured person must be fully compensated before the person’s insurance company can receive any part of the payment being made by the other party who wrongfully caused the injury or damage.

Where this comes into play, for example, is when a person is hurt as a result of someone else’s action and the injured person’s insurance company pays for part of the person’s medical costs and other expenses.

Turbak Berry explained that the purpose of the change is to prevent the insured person’s insurance company from cutting in line ahead of the injured person to get compensated for the money the insurance company had already laid out.

Specifically, SB 169 says: “No insurer under this chapter is entitled to participate in any recovery from any tortfeasor on account of bodily injury or death or damage to property unless and until its insured has first been made whole. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any workers’ compensation recovery.”

The last sentence was added at the suggestion of Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, by the House of Representatives. The Senate vote Wednesday was whether to agree with that amendment.

The legislation originally failed 17-18 in the Senate on Feb. 22. But the bill got a second life the next day when it was brought back for reconsideration.

Through a switch in position by Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, to a supporter, and the absence of Sen. Dennis Schmidt, R-Rapid City, who had been a supporter, the bill on reconsideration ended in a 17-17 tie vote.

That allowed Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard to break the tie. He voted in favor of the bill’s passage. The House of Representatives then voted 39-28 in favor with the Hunt amendment Monday.

Among the lobbyists working for the bill’s passage were former state Attorney General Roger Tellinghuisen of Spearfish and former state Rep. Mike DeMersseman, head of a prominent Rapid City law firm. The legislation was strongly opposed by insurance lobbyists.

Three of the Legislature’s caucus leaders — Senate Democrat Scott Heidepriem of Watertown, House Republican Bob Faehn of Watertown and House Democrat Bernie Hunhoff of Yankton — were among her co-sponsors on the bill.

The question now is whether Gov. Mike Rounds will sign SB 169 into law, let it become law without his signature, or veto it. He’s supporting Daugaard, but whether that means anything on this matter is unknown.

Turbak Berry doesn’t have the votes in either chamber for the two-thirds majorities necessary to override a veto.

She does however have an invitation for an airplane ride with the governor today to see flood conditions in northeast South Dakota, which could provide an opportunity for her to discuss the issue with him.

WARNING:

Comments are not verified for accuracy nor have we verified the identity of any person’s name accompanying a comment, so please consider this as you weigh any statements made or opinions offered.


NOTE:

• Comments will not be posted if submitted in all caps, or all lower case, or do not show a reasonable attempt to follow basic rules of grammar and punctuation, nor will text-message like abbreviations be accepted, like ur for your.
• Postings must stay on the issues related to the thread and not veer off into personal comments about others. The tone of the post must be civil. For example, you can say someone’s ideas are stupid but you cannot say another poster is stupid.
• Postings must deal with matters of public concern.




Comments

2 comment(s)

    Really wrote on Mar 11, 2010 8:01 PM:

    " This is nothing more than a bigger cut for attorneys. Note the sponsors of the bill. Insurance companies take the risk, pay the bills and the attorneys take their 40% off the top. With no definition of 'made whole' do you think any plaintiff will ever reach that standard? Watch your insurance rates skyrocket when insurance companies get zero recovery from the responsible parties.
    Veto! "

    Bonnie Zebroski wrote on Mar 11, 2010 2:44 PM:

    " Hallelujah! This is long overdue - the seriously injured person has been zapped repeatedly by the insurance companies and frequently left in desperate straits. Good for the South Dakota legislators! "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments must be approved by an editor before appearing on the Web site. Editors review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   


Marketplace

Classifieds




Contact Us

Call 605-224-7301

Staff Directory