Professional Documents
Culture Documents
meet prescribed safety standards No comments were received to contradict this statement. It
should be noted, however, that the majority of the State residual market rate levels are higher than those
of the voluntary market. Thus it is believed that there is some incentive, though perhaps to a lesser
degree than originally contemplated, that will lead to improved safety performance.
July 2, 1984
In light of the foregoing. It is evident that there are very diverse views concerning what can reasonably be
considered "protection of the public."
For those who oppose the extension, it appears that the public can be adequately protected only if motor
carriers are insured to levels adequate to cover "worst case accidents. This, of course, would be an ideal
situation for a number of reasons, such as providing adequate awards to injured parties as well as
protecting the assets of the motor carrier involved in such an event
On the other hand, those commenters who favor the extension appear to consider the minimum levels
currently in effect reasonable protection since those limits cover liability claims in the vast majority of
cases.
The FHWA agrees with those in opposition that "worst case" accidents can and do occur, leaving
a trail of destruction and suffering in their wake. It is also understood, as pointed out in their
comments, that these catastrophic accidents result in liability claims which can be above even the
highest minimum levels mentioned in Section 30.
The FHWA feels confident that the Congress was fully aware of the catastrophic accidents which
have occurred over the past decade or so when they passed the MCA of 1980. The Congress, in
passing the MCA of 1980, called for minimum levels of financial responsibility to enhance safety and
adequately protect the public. The Congress also gave the Secretary the authority to lower those
minimum levels for a specified period of time if the reduction would prevent a serious disruption in service
and-would not adversely affect public safety. It can therefore be reasonably deduced that the Congress'
intent for reasonable protection did not include those damages incurred as a result of an extremely limited
number of "worst case" accidents. It is reasonable to assume this is still true since the Congress saw fit to
give the Secretary the authority to extend the "phase-in period" from 2 years to 3 years in the STAA of
1982.
With all things considered (i.e., protection of the public, the stability of the motor carrier industry,
the ability of' the insurance industry to provide the coverage and the particular needs of small and
minority motor carriers) the question which begs to be answered is what minimum levels of
financial responsibility are sufficient? We stress the word "minimum" as it has appeared since the
inception of the MCA of 1980.
The FHWA firmly believes, based on its data and the data provided by the insurance industry, that with
only two one-hundredths of one percent of all commercial vehicle accidents resulting in settlements of
more than $500,000, the current minimums are sufficient. This is not to say that the FHWA does not
strongly endorse and encourage motor carriers to maintain levels of liability coverage sufficient to cover
their assets and fully protect their concerns. What is at issue here is the absolute minimum which
must be maintained before a motor carrier subject to these rules may operate its vehicles on the
public highway system.