re: #243 lawhawk

Not exactly. Allowing insurers to work across state lines means that a person could obtain a bare bones policy, if that’s what they wanted, rather than the in-state mandated minimum level of policy that can be substantially higher than what that person wants or needs.

NY mandates certain policy coverages, which drive up the costs for an individual buying those policies. If the person could obtain a policy from another state - that doesn’t have those requirements, the policy cost to that individual would be lower.

hypothetical:

State A requires that annual and lifetime policy limits have to be at least certain amounts, to be sure that the coverage is adequate. State B allows insufficient limits and further permits the policy to be marketed in a way that allows the carrier to avoid obvious disclosure of those inadequate limits.

One could say that state A has a regulation that “drives up the cost of coverage”. That statement would be accurate. But would you really want to encourage carriers to domicile in State B so they could sell the crapola deceptive policy? Would that be, in the grand scheme of things, a good idea?