Latest news:

4/16/2008
NCOIL Won’t Pass Ban On Emergency Service Fees

BY ARTHUR D. POSTAL
NU Online News Service, March 3, 2:37 p.m. EST

...

Read more...


5/23/2007
3 Detroit Fires Kill 6 in 24 Hours
(Amber Hunt and Bill McGraw)

DETROIT - David Soto staggered from his burning house, his ...

Read more...


11/25/2006
Most of the grumbling about Wyoming's plan to charge fees in traffic crashes has been that it would raise insurance rates. But that theory is deb...

Read more...


Links:

- Cost Recovery Corp
- Valid XHTML
- Valid CSS

Version: 1.0
(July 25, 2006)



Cost Recovery Corporation (CRC), based in Dayton, Ohio, is committed to assisting municipalities in their efforts to keep their citizens safe. Cost recovery is NOT a fund-generating program. This program’s primary function is designed to recoup the money spent by taxpayers for services provided to NON-taxpayers. Communities recycle that money back into the budget for services that directly benefit the taxpayers.


Fire Departments have been recovering costs from “crashes”, other than EMS services, since 1999 and, in 2004; CRC added cost recovery for Police Departments. Similar to EMS billing, the services that are being billed for are OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF BASIC FIRE PROTECTION, CRIMINAL PROTECTION and INVESTIGATION and detract from safety services’ ability to protect their citizens. Responding to traffic crashes is reacting to a civil situation caused by negligent driving. The sophistication of criminals, Homeland Security, additional complex reporting, rising costs and increasing populations are further demands that have been added to our Safety Services Departments. Tax dollars alone cannot and should not sustain these increased costs. Many firefighters and police officers have been laid off in the past two years. This has resulted in a higher crime rate and a higher loss of life in structure fires. Federal and State budget cuts have forced cities all across the country to closely examine benefits of their current services and to determine the best utilization of tax dollars. Eliminating services that do not benefit the majority is a distinct possibility. One such example would be eliminating response to vehicular accidents unless there is a life threatening injury. This system currently exists in Canada, Germany and even some larger metropolitan cities here in the United States.


As previously stated, the majority of services provided at the scene of a motor vehicle crash are outside the scope of basic fire protection, criminal protection, investigations and apprehension of criminals, the essential functions of Safety Service Departments. Responding to motor vehicle accidents is a civil issue caused by negligent driving. Non-taxpayers cause a significant number of “crashes”, thus, tax-paying residents are forced to bear the burden of subsidizing these costs. If a municipality chooses to raise taxes, then all residents pay for the transgressions of a few. It is an ineffective and unfair use of tax dollars, considering the true financial beneficiaries of Safety Services quick response; accident investigations and reporting are the insurance companies.


Reimbursement for responding to motor vehicle “crashes” is a voluntary payment program on the part of insurance companies. The at fault driver, only, is held responsible. Therefore, CRC encourages all drivers to contact their insurance providers to ensure that they will be covered in the event of negligent driving and as a result, responsible for an accident. Those individuals without insurance are in violation of the law and will be billed directly. Currently 56% of insurance companies recognize the value of these extraneous services and support this pro-active program. The supporters understand the benefit to the communities, their policyholders and even themselves. Most Insurance companies know that a quick response by a well-staffed, well-equipped Safety Services Department results in reduced fire damage, reduced injury severity, and greater prevention of deaths. The end result is less liability, resulting in lower costs to the Insurance Industry further protecting their profit margin. A safer community actually affords its residents lower insurance premiums on their homes and automobiles. Other insurance companies are supportive of this program simply because it offers them a competitive edge by potentially capturing some of the market from those companies that choose not to provide this coverage to its policyholders.


The implementation of this program does not increase insurance rates. Since the inception of Cost Recovery in 1999, no citizen has ever experienced an increase in insurance rates due to this program. Increasing RATES would require the individual companies to file an extensive cost report and win favor with the State Insurance Commissioner. If you are at-fault, your premium may or may not be adjusted based on your risk factor. This adjustment would occur whether this program is in place or not. The Property and Casualty insurance industry is sound enough financially to offer up to 40% discounts on current policies. However, if a policyholder causes an accident, the insurance company may eliminate the discounts, giving the appearance of a rate increase. This method of marketing by insurance companies leaves an impression in the consumer’s mind that each “crash” will increase their premiums. It is such an effective tactic, that 57% of all “crashes” are not reported (US Department of Transportation) and paid out-of-pocket by the insured.


This program is NOT DOUBLE TAXATION because there is NO OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE TO TAXPAYERS. All costs recovered are a direct benefit to the taxpayer and the community in which their safety service department is committed to protect and serve.