A Poll: Should commercial carriers be allowed access to Facility Insurance?

[Michael Ludwig]

The OTA accepts that commercial carriers should have access to Facility Insurance in principle and wants to make the stay short, expensive, and conditional.

I reject this premise. I believe that a carrier the voluntary market has refused has been correctly judged unfit, and time-limited access to Facility Insurance just defers that verdict while still leaving the public at risk, and legitimate carriers paying for their mistakes.

To be fair, open, and honest, this opinion is a double edged sword. What if you, or your company, screws up so bad that your insurance carrier drops you, or the market turns and your insurance carrier gets out of the truck insurance business? You, or your company, could, possibly through no fault of your own, be temporarily left with nowhere to go for insurance other than Facility Insurance.

With this in mind I would like everyone to consider the above and respond to the following poll;

 

[Nawk]

Tough Question... I see both sides.

 

[MikeJr]

I see both sides also, but public safety is the trump card for me. No.

Keep well,
Mike

 

[loaders]

Perhaps yes, for a limited time that corresponds to an improved safety rating or proof of documented, verified remedial action to correct past mistakes.

 

[Jim L]

I would like to have a hard definition of 'time-limited'. I might be persuaded if it were 3 months, while a carrier is getting quotes and solidifying the relationship with a new insurer, but then the administrative work is a nightmare.
I think that if they got rid of commercial facility, other players may enter the field of insurance. For the time being, a newcomer would be stuck with an open-ended facility bill that they have to participate in.
If facility was toasted, the good carriers would thrive and poor carriers would be forced to change their ways or get cut loose.

Whatever happens, facility, in its current form, has to change.