Back in 1976 while editor of The Claimsman, the monthly newsletter of the South Florida Claims Association, I pitched the idea of a "George Bureau" in one of my editorials, which were then titled "The Claims-Conscious Iconoclast." I suggested that this bureau would solve many of Florida's uninsured motorist and drunk-driving problems. By then, Florida had auto no-fault, which carried with it a mandatory auto liability insurance requirement. Hence every registered automobile was supposed to be insured.
To get around the law, a deadbeat would use a trick in which he would go to an agent, get a binder for coverage, then register his car and never pay the premium. Undoubtedly, the stunt was not unique to Florida; this may be common in any state with a mandatory auto insurance law.
In the 1970s, we believed computers could do just about everything. (In 2009, we know they can.) Hence, my editorial suggested a state George Bureau that would enforce the law with a screwdriver. If an auto policy was cancelled for non-payment, then the guy from the George Bureau would find the car, remove the license plates, and paste a big red sticker on the front windshield. The police could arrest anyone who tried to then drive the car and charge them with violating the insurance law.
Further, the authorities could revoke the driver's license of any person arrested and convicted for drunk driving. The person would receive a visit from the George Bureau, which would replace the regular license plate with a big red one to indicate that the driver may not be licensed. The theory was that if the wife — a licensed driver — decided to drive the vehicle, then the police would likely stop her often, checking her license. Because of this repeated nuisance, she would be unmerciful to her "old man," which would be all the more punishment for his drunk driving. When the license suspension or revocation ended, then the regular license plate would be restored.
Drunk Driving Is Murder
In early January, CBS's 60 Minutes aired a story about a Long Island, N.Y., prosecutor pursuing intentional murder charges against drunk drivers who are involved in fatalities. The story featured one family who was returning from a wedding and was struck head-on by a drunk driver. The driver sustained only minor injuries, but the wreck killed the driver of the wedding limousine and a child passenger, and seriously injured the other (innocent) passengers. The jury concurred — murder it was — and sentenced the guilty to 18-years-to-life in prison. Other courts are also considering murder as opposed to vehicular homicide charges in fatal drunk driving cases. In many such cases, the drunk driver is a repeat offender.
Seeing the story reminded me of my "George Bureau" column some 30 years earlier. I'd even suggested the idea in communications with various state insurance commissioners. To my knowledge, however, no state has decided to "let George do it" thus far. That saying might have originated either with the 18th century idea that George Washington could do anything and everything, or it stemmed from the fact that the porters hired to staff George Pullman's fancy railroad sleeping cars were always called "George." One would say, "Don't pull the bed down yourself; let George do it."
A Computer with Teeth
Would a George Bureau be effective? It could easily be funded by fines imposed on drunk drivers or violators of a mandatory insurance law. It would certainly trim the cost of uninsured motorist coverage. Perhaps the actual task could be subcontracted to process servers or bounty hunters. For instance, removing and replacing a license plate could fetch $50, including no coverage for getting shot while doing it. Well, for $55, George could buy his own insurance against getting shot by an irate, uninsured drunkard.
Of course, "George" would have to be a big computer wherein all insurers would keep the state informed of whether vehicles were insured or if the coverage had been cancelled. This system could be synched to the court records for DUI offenders, and it could be a small part of a state insurance department's bureaucracy. If the anti-McCarran-Ferguson (state regulation) advocates get their way and insurance becomes a federally regulated system, then a national insurance records system would need to be coordinated with state George Bureau operatives.
What else might the George Bureau do while it is enforcing the law with a screwdriver? In drought areas — the Southeast, Texas, California, and other swaths where water is short and lawn watering is restricted — the bureau could spot scofflaws and turn off their water until the water department's fine was paid. After three days of not taking a bath or washing the dishes, the water violator would get the message. Fifty dollars of the fine imposed could go to George for his efforts.
George, the Whistleblower
While prowling around, George could spot construction and other work locations where illegal immigrants might be employed in direct violation of immigration laws. George might also spot unsafe working conditions and report the offenders to OSHA. If George had ample training, then he might observe a field where marijuana was growing and report that to the DEA. There are many ways a nosey George could enforce society's laws.
That could be a drawback, as well. This brings up the old battle about whether society wants a bunch of busybody do-gooders blowing whistles and getting their neighbors in trouble. That reeks of Nazi Germany, where people were rewarded for tattling on their neighbors and even relatives. Do we really want an Orwellian 1984 world? As children, depending on our personalities and dispositions, we were either tattle-tales or the tattled-on victims who were often punished for peccadilloes not committed.
How many sit imprisoned, convicted based on evidence provided by a "snitch" or a "paid informant" who might have been less than truthful because of the incentive of a reduced sentence or a cash payment? It seems that a growing number of cases of wrongful conviction end up as claims against the state. These cost taxpayers millions each year. After the executioner has already injected the prisoner with lethal drugs, it's too late for the witness to begin to have doubts about his testimony. Do we really want a nation where the cops pay low-life characters for questionable information?
Eyes Everywhere
Saying "yes" or "no" to that question is not as easy as it may seem. Sure, coworkers may ostracize whistleblowers if the tattling costs the employer a fine or bad publicity. However, if the employer was committing a crime, then the whistle should be blown. Failure to act causes great harm to the public when a manufacturer knows its product is dangerous but keeps this fact a secret until a whistleblower informs the authorities so that preventive action can be taken. Whistleblowers can be heroes.
It's the same in government. With Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich accused of "pay-to-play politics," some may view FBI informants as being very noble in their actions to prevent graft and bribery. But will the Feds get a conviction? We'll have to wait and see. Where would the Nixon Administration have been without Deep Throat informing The Washington Post's Watergate reporters, or at least keeping Woodward and Bernstein on the right track? We don't want a corrupt government or business, which means that information is vital.
As it turns out, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) knew of the probability that Bernie Madoff's hedge fund was a Ponzi scheme years before the lid blew off and investors claimed the huge loss. Someone informed the SEC, but no one listened. Of course, one can always question what those investors lost. Sure, hedge funds were great for turning an investor's $1 million into $10 million. When the market collapsed and those investors lost "millions," which millions were they? Did they lose the original million, or the paper $9 million the fund had conjured up in its risky portfolios?
The situation was different with the mortgage scams. "Everybody" (whoever they are) believed that home values would only increase. When the homeowner ended up paying a $1.3 million mortgage on a home worth only $720,000 — and with an adjustable interest rate mortgage that kept going higher — "everybody" lost real money.
Perhaps it would be best for George to stick strictly to removing the license plates of uninsured cars or executing the red tag penalty for drunk drivers. Those of us in the adjusting business know what a drunk driver's accident can do and should therefore welcome any opportunity to keep them off the road. Invariably the best we in the insurance industry can do now is raise the drunk driver's premium or cancel his insurance, and pay his victims the policy limits. What about prevention, you might ask? Let George do it.
Ken Brownlee, CPCU, is a former adjuster and risk manager based in Atlanta, Ga. He now authors and edits claim-adjusting textbooks.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.