Personal Injury Insurance Coverage

Online comments: 5

• Anita Dickson

  In the “Statement of Basis and Purpose” the author of this proposal has the audacity to write:
  “[Cutting the minimum required insurance coverage in half]
  will better ensure that all road users … are quickly
  and adequately compensated in the event of an injury-causing crash… ”
  I just am in awe of how unabashedly a proposal, that clearly only benefits a small group of people at the expense of everyone else, is spun as something that will actually somehow help the exact people it will directly harm!

  How would cutting the required insurance coverage lead to quicker adequate compensation? The exact opposite is true; the coverage will be less adequate and the compensation time will be much longer since a higher number of people will need to get lawyers involved.
  This is a terrible proposal for several reasons:
  Easing insurance requirements on TLC-licensed vehicles will lower the cost of owning and operating these vehicles, as if the current insurance costs are an undue financial burden that is preventing enough vehicles from being on the road to meet the public’s demand — in reality there is no such shortage. In fact there are, if anything, too many vehicles already in operation (even still TLC licenses are highly coveted and in demand); this is because owning and operating these vehicles is a profitable endeavor already.
  TLC licensed vehicles should undoubtedly carry more insurance than personal vehicles by the very nature of how and why they are operated; this was the reasoning behind creating the rule originally and I don’t see why this should change.

  Anyone in favor of this proposal is clearly taking the side of wealthy TLC-license holding groups over the best interests of their constituents; voting in favor of this proposal is like waving a flag that you have been bought and paid for; you are willing to trade the best interests of the public in exchange for support from a lobbying group.

  Comment added August 2, 2025 7:25pm

• John Doe

  This is an absolutely terrible proposal that in absolutely no way benefits the public. See the attached report on why this change MUST not be adopted.

  Comment attachment
  Insurance-Coverage-Reduction-Opposition.pdf

  Comment added August 2, 2025 7:30pm

• John Doe

  Please vote against this proposal! It absolutely goes against the public’s best interests. Please read the attached report as all of the information could not fit into the comment section online.
  (To moderator: I am resubmitting this as the attached file was originally incorrectly formatted, you can ignore my previous comment several minutes ago)

  Comment attachment
  Insurance-Coverage-Reduction-Opposition-.pdf

  Comment added August 2, 2025 7:39pm

• [email protected]

  The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (TLC) proposal to reduce personal injury insurance coverage for TLC-licensed vehicles from $200,000 to $100,000 per person is fundamentally flawed and detrimental to public safety and victim compensation.

  Insufficient Coverage: The proposed $100,000 limit is demonstrably inadequate to cover the actual costs of severe and catastrophic injuries in New York City. Medical expenses for conditions like spinal cord injuries or traumatic brain injuries can range from hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars, far exceeding the proposed coverage. Actual personal injury settlements in New York frequently surpass this amount, indicating the true financial need for comprehensive compensation.  

  Increased Financial Burden on Victims: Reducing the immediate no-fault benefit will force severely injured individuals to rely more heavily on their personal health insurance (which comes with deductibles and co-pays) and, more significantly, compel them into lengthy and costly personal injury lawsuits to seek full compensation, including non-economic damages like pain and suffering. This directly contradicts the TLC’s stated goal of “quick and adequate compensation”.  

  Heightened Risks in NYC’s Urban Environment: New York City’s high population density, complex intersections, diverse transportation methods (including a high volume of pedestrians and cyclists), and ongoing construction contribute to a high incidence of traffic accidents, many involving TLC-licensed vehicles and resulting in severe injuries. Data shows thousands of crashes involving TLC vehicles annually, with hundreds leading to severe injuries. This high-risk environment necessitates robust insurance coverage, not a reduction.  

  Contradiction of TLC’s Historical Rationale: The TLC initially adopted the $200,000 coverage in the late 1990s as part of a “broader effort to address safety in the for-hire industry,” recognizing that TLC vehicles are primarily used full-time for hire. The proposed reduction abandons this safety-driven precedent without any change in the underlying conditions that justified it.  

  In conclusion, the proposed reduction would leave accident victims inadequately protected, increase their financial and emotional burden, and undermine the TLC’s historical commitment to public safety in a high-risk urban setting.

  Comment added August 2, 2025 7:45pm

• Kathleen Collins

  In the annexed letter please see my comments in response to the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s request for comments regarding the TLC’s proposal to amend its rules with respect to the following four topics:

  1-Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Conversion, Reference Number 2025 RG 005,

  2-Cyclist Awareness Decals, Reference Number 2025 RG 058,

  3-Personal Injury Insurance Coverage Requirement, Reference Number 2025 RG 057, and,

  4-Driver Pay Rule Amendment, Reference Number 2025 RG 062.

  Very truly yours,
  Kathleen M. Collins

  Comment attachment
  9-2-2025-Final-Letter-to-NYC-TLC-Conversion-of-Taxis-Etc-1.pdf

  Comment added September 2, 2025 5:53pm