Affordability Cannot Come at the Expense of Justice
By Dacosta Headley
New Yorkers are facing a real affordability crisis. Housing costs are high, groceries are expensive, and insurance premiums are rising. Families are stretched thin. But weakening our civil justice system is not a solution to the lack of affordability.
Under the banner of “insurance reform,” proposals are being advanced that would significantly restrict the rights of injured New Yorkers. These changes are being presented as a way to lower premiums, yet there is no enforceable guarantee that insurers will pass any savings on to consumers. Meanwhile, the insurance industry has reported record profits year after year, and rate increases have been routinely approved for decades. If this were truly about affordability, premium reductions would be mandatory, not speculative.
At the center of this debate is an attack on New York’s comparative negligence system. Rooted in fairness, this system ensures that those who are negligent pay their proportional share and nothing more. Responsibility is allocated based on fault. Eliminating or weakening that framework does not protect working families—it protects insurance carriers. It would allow insurers to hide behind arbitrary legal thresholds instead of having juries evaluate the true merits of a case.
Rather than streamlining litigation, these changes would likely prolong it, as insurers rely on categorical defenses instead of engaging in a good-faith evaluation of fault. That approach benefits insurance companies, not people.
Supporters of these changes often point to extreme hypotheticals, such as drunk drivers recovering damages. But under existing law, a person who is fully responsible for causing an accident does not recover. These examples are not viable causes of action. They are rhetorical devices used to justify structural changes that would deny recovery to injured New Yorkers even when another party was substantially at fault.
We all agree that fraud must be eradicated. Insurance fraud and staged accidents undermine public trust. But strong enforcement mechanisms already exist to investigate and prosecute fraud. Broad restrictions on legitimate claims are not a targeted solution.
Proposals tied to suspended licenses also raise serious equity concerns. As we work to expand access to DMV services and recognize that fines and fees disproportionately burden low-income families, we should not adopt policies that automatically deprive someone of their day in court based solely on license status. The merits of each case should carry the day.
If we are serious about lowering premiums, we must address risk. Insurance pricing is driven by accidents. Fewer accidents mean fewer claims, which means lower losses. That is how premiums fall.
The path to affordability is prevention. Remove unsafe drivers from the road, address repeat reckless conduct, strengthen enforcement, and invest in roadway and workplace safety. Punishing people after they are injured does not prevent accidents.
Consider a simple analogy: housing can be built more cheaply using plastic and glue instead of concrete and steel. But the human cost would be catastrophic. Similarly, reducing legal accountability may lower payouts on paper, but the cost does not disappear. It is absorbed by injured families and our communities, often through increased reliance on public assistance programs and taxpayer-supported systems.
New York can pursue affordability without sacrificing fairness or accountability. A balanced approach means protecting consumers, preventing accidents, and ensuring that when harm occurs, responsibility is determined based on the facts—not restricted by policies designed to shield insurers from accountability.
