Relatively Dangerous
Read your auto-insurance policy carefully. Your family members aren't as covered as you think.
November 18th, 2009
Murmurs • Going Rogue Each Week4 comments
November 18th, 2009
Dr. Know2 comments
November 18th, 2009
Letters to the Editor • Inbox1 comment
November 18th, 2009
Cover Story • Randyland, Part II | WW examines whether Randy Leonard is using his power to benefit downtown’s largest private property owner.64 comments
November 18th, 2009
Rogue of the Week • Bureau Of Transportation | One more mouth to feed.5 comments
November 18th, 2009
The Back Of The Bus | Why TriMet is carrying Anti-Fred Meyer ads. 3 comments
November 18th, 2009
Chronic Debate | Where there’s smoke, there’s a dispute.0 comments
November 18th, 2009
Making It Rain | Oregon’s most litigious stripper is out to reform the industry.11 comments
November 18th, 2009
Fire Drilled | After the blaze at Marysville School, a retired inspector sounds the alarm.11 comments
November 18th, 2009
By The Numbers | Fare Trade0 comments
![]() |
[March 7th, 2007] An old-fashioned family road trip in Oregon may be riskier than most drivers realize.
Oregon is one of at least 16 states that lets companies selling auto insurance limit payouts to $25,000 for each injured passenger related to at-fault drivers in crashes.
The so-called "family exclusion" can cap coverage to $25,000 even when a driver carries a liability policy of $100,000 or more.
"If you're at fault in an accident and a family member is hurt really, really bad, if you've got $70,000 in medical bills—you're just...out of luck," says Neil Jackson, a Portland-based lawyer who estimates he has handled at least a dozen family-exclusion cases in his 30-year career.
Jackson and the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association are working with state legislators to develop a bill to eliminate the exclusions.
Insurance companies say they need the $25,000 family-exclusion limit because of the danger that relatives may collude to seek big "pain and suffering" rewards from insurers beyond their actual medical bills.
"It's just not a good thing for society—for family members to be making those kind of claims against one another," says Jeff Aeschliman, spokesman for State Farm Pacific Northwest.
Exclusions aren't typically spelled out on the one-page summary of benefits that policyholders most commonly reference. And if agents don't make customers aware of the exclusions, it's hard to imagine most people hopscotching through the jargon of 20-plus-page policies to learn when their family members aren't fully covered.
The limits rarely come into play because all Oregon drivers must carry $15,000 in personal injury protection or the other driver may be at fault in a crash, says Ron Fredrickson, manager of the Oregon Insurance Division's consumer advocacy unit. But when the exclusion is invoked by insurance companies, it tends to limit coverage on the most catastrophic accidents.
Take Tosha Mowry's case: In October 2005, she was 26 weeks pregnant. Mowry's boyfriend, Mario Urzua, fell asleep driving her 2001 Lexus sedan near Warm Springs on U.S. 26. Urzua drove across the barrier, severely injuring another motorist and Mowry. Mowry was hospitalized with injuries to her head and uterus as well as a fractured clavicle. Her unborn baby died the following day.
Mowry carried a "100/300" policy with Farmers Insurance—meaning she believed she'd get up to $100,000 per injured person, and up to $300,000 per crash involving her car.
Farmers said it would pay Mowry $25,000 for herself, and $25,000 for her unborn child. Her initial medical bills totaled about $40,000 but her attorney says future medical treatments and compensation for her pain and suffering pushes her client's expenses well past Farmers' offer.
"This is a classic example of a bait-and-switch," says Hala Gores, the Portland attorney preparing a lawsuit on Mowry's behalf. "Farmers paid the $100,000 maximum to the other driver...but they're only paying $25,000 for Mowry's own baby? It's just outrageous that they can do this."
Farmers had no immediate comment.
No one has estimates on exactly how much the exclusions save insurers annually. But David Snyder, vice president and assistant general counsel of the American Insurance Association, says they're a way "to reduce costs to make basic coverage more affordable for more consumers."
He says premiums will rise for everybody if the family exclusions are eliminated, though Oregon Insurance Division's Fredrickson predicts a rise would be small "because there aren't that many cases out there that are big and bad."
Nonetheless, Jackson expects insurers to try to kill any bill targeting exclusions.
"This law is just a dinosaur,'' Jackson says. "It's an anachronistic clause, and just doesn't belong there anymore."
RECENT COMMENTS ON “Relatively Dangerous”
The umbrella policies written by Safeco also have the family exclusion written into the fine print. What this amounts to is a different policy limit for one class of injured persons, and which is not ...
All of this is quite distressing when people expect auto insurance to PROTECT them especially their OWN COMPANY! At this point I have been looking for a different company because I feel swindled by Fa...
I see whats in it for the lawyers, but whats in it for the consumer? These cases are rare, and in fact you can purchase that buyback. Attorneys will make money, insurance carriers will be allowed to...
To "Think it Through": Well my friend, I'm happy to report that as of January of 2008 all policies renewed or issued will no longer allow the family exclusion. HB 3086 passed and was signed ...











