Should Manhattan Accident Victims be Charged for Emergency Help?

Manhattan auto accident victims have something else to worry about besides the accident now. Bloomberg is proposing

that Manhattan and other New York City residents pay a fee whenever firefighters respond to an auto accident, and have

mentioned a possible 911 fee to be charged to private hospitals as well. This auto accident fee proposal, if passed,

would be implemented in June and proponents believe it could add as much as $1 million dollars to the city coffers.

Mayor Bloomberg's administration outlines the proposal which would ideally charge insurance companies for

firefighter's response to Manhattan auto accidents and surrounding boroughs. The administration notes that other

jurisdictions have implemented the accident fee as a means of recovering a portion of the high cost of providing this

type of services. Mayor Bloomberg believes charging such a fee - even though he readily agreed it is a form of

"back-door" taxation - is better than shutting down New York City Fire Departments due to budged constraints. While

this may be a worthy attempt to help dig cash-strapped New York City out of its multibillion-dollar budget gap, it has

many up in arms.

During a hearing on Friday, the insurance industry - and others - spoke out against what has been dubbed the "crash

tax" which would allow to charge a fee in Manhattan and surrounding areas from $356-$490 whenever firefighters

respond to an auto accident call in the city. It is expected, however, that a large portion of insurance companies will flatly

deny claims which charge a fee for the city's response to an auto accident, claiming they don't fit under the "standard"

definition of bodily injury coverage or property damage. If a person's insurance company denies the claim, this leaves

the victim responsible for the bill. Along the same lines, The Property Casualty Insurance Association of America, stated

in the hearing that such fees will almost certainly drive up the cost of insurance premiums in NYC.

Opponents to the proposal feel it is clearly a form of double taxation; New York City citizens are first expected to pay

property and local taxes, which are not minor in Manhattan, for the privilege of being "protected" then must pay again

should they be involved in an auto accident, whether or not they are at fault. Most auto accidents - by their very nature -

immediately put the victim at a distinct disadvantage. First the victim is hit with an array of costs, injuries and other

difficulties, and now would be expected to pay even more for necessary help from city rescue personnel. In a time of

such widespread economic depression this proposed fee may well cause Manhattan residents even more financial

hardship.

While other jurisdictions have implemented the crash tax with some success - Bloomberg points to 55 cities which are

successfully collecting the tax - ten states have passed laws or resolutions banning accident response fees (Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee). Manhattan dwellers

wonder what will come next, should the New York City Fire Department respond to a residential fire or the police

respond to a break-in or domestic disturbance, will a bill from the city be going out in the mail? No city council approval

is required to implement the proposed auto accident fee, but more input from Manhattan citizens is expected before a

final decision is made.