Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
In 2010, Eric DuBarry and his two-year-old son Seamus were crossing a street in Portland, Oregon, when an elderly driver mistook the accelerator for the brake, and ploughed into the pair and another man. They were flung across the street—the pram wrapping itself around a lamppost. In hospital that evening, Michelle DuBarry, Seamus’s mother, recalls “this realisation of, my God, how are we going to pay for this?” The day after the crash, Seamus died. The hospital charged the couple’s insurance $180,000 for his care. The DuBarrys had to raise $4,500 of that themselves; and had no coverage for the time off work they had to take. Ms DuBarry thought that at least the driver’s car insurance would pay for some of those costs.
She quickly discovered that there was little hope of that. The driver who killed Seamus had just $100,000 of liability coverage per victim. Before the DuBarrys saw a penny, their health and car insurers claimed the entire amount to cover their costs. Eventually, with the help of a lawyer, they clawed some back. But, says Ms DuBarry, “I still was just left with this feeling: How can it be this hard?”
She began campaigning for a change in the law in Oregon which had allowed hospitals and insurers to get the first bite of any settlement—and succeeded. Yet the real problem, she points out, was the low level of liability coverage. “In Oregon, the minimum amount of insurance you’re required to have is $25,000,” she says. “Even if you’re just admitted to the ER, there’s not going to be money left over.”
Car insurance in America is getting far more expensive. In the year to December 2023, prices paid for it, as measured by the consumer-price index, rose by 20%, even as inflation overall moderated. Prices are often controlled at state level, but regulators are approving the increases because the industry is losing money hand over fist. According to the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), a trade association, last year insurers paid out $1.08 in claims for every $1 in premiums they took in.
And yet what Ms DuBarry’s story shows is that, in fact, American car insurance is still far too cheap. As much as drivers may resent paying higher premiums, insurance covers only a small fraction of the costs inflicted in car crashes. Instead, health insurers, government and drivers involved in crashes shoulder the burden, and victims are rarely fully compensated.
According to a study published last year by the NHTSA, America’s highway-safety regulator, the direct economic costs of car crashes in 2019 was $340bn, or about 1.6% of GDP. Yet the NHTSA says insurance—and not just car insurance—covered just 54% of that. The agency put the true social cost, including lost life years, at nearly $1.4trn. In 2019, 9m people were involved in serious car crashes; around 4.5m people suffered injuries and 36,000 were killed.
Since then, the number of severe crashes has climbed. It is hard to say exactly why. New, heavier sports utility vehicles and pick-up trucks seem to be deadlier. Since the pandemic, traffic has spread out more evenly through the day, and so speeds have increased. Insurers also point to more people driving while looking at their phones. Whatever the cause of the spike, in 2022 nearly 43,000 people were killed in car crashes, including 7,500 pedestrians—the highest figure since 1981.
America’s spartan car insurance stands out in the rich world. Legal minimum bodily-injury coverage varies state by state, but nowhere does it pass $100,000 per accident. According to the Insurance Research Council (IRC), an industry data group, 29% of claims nationally (and over 50% in several states) involve people insured at the state minimums. Few policies go beyond a few hundred thousand dollars of liability. The cost of a serious crash “is never going to be covered by that”, says Dale Porfilio, of the IRC. By contrast, in Germany drivers are required to have €7.5m ($8.2m) of bodily-injury coverage, and in Britain liability is unlimited. And in those countries, going into hospital does not mean running up a life-altering bill.
Hardly by accident
Why not raise the liability legal limits? The problem, points out Robert Gordon, a vice-president at the APCIA, is that it would make insurance cost more. And that is deeply unpopular.
In October California raised its minimum limits for bodily-injury coverage—but to just $30,000 per victim. A few states are going in the other direction. Michigan, where car insurance is “no fault”, which means that victims claim from their own policies regardless of whose fault the crash was, in 2019 removed a requirement for people to buy coverage for unlimited medical costs. That led to a big drop in premiums, defying the national trend (previously Michigan drivers had higher bills than most). Gretchen Whitmer, the state’s Democratic governor, considers that to be a victory for consumers.
Cheaper premiums do not mean that the costs go away. Indeed, as prices rise nationally, in part because of the greater number of crashes, some worry that more drivers will forsake buying insurance altogether. Already around one in eight American drivers is not covered, a far higher share than in other rich countries. David Abels, a personal-injury lawyer in Illinois, says that “in reality, you have to protect yourself.” Drivers are subsidised, and society at large pays the bill. ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
THE FIRST shot against America’s senior military leaders was fired within hours of Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20th: General Mark Milley’s portrait was removed from the wall on the E-ring, where it had hung with paintings of other former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. A day later the commandant of the coast guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, was thrown overboard. On February 21st it was the most senior serving officer, General Charles “CQ” Brown, a former F-16 pilot, who was ejected from the Pentagon. At least he was spared a Trumpian farewell insult. “He is a fine gentleman and an outstanding leader,” Mr Trump declared.
The struggling German economy has been a major talking point among critics of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ government during the latest election campaign — but analysts warn a new leadership might not turn these tides.
As voters prepare to head to the polls, it is now all but certain that Germany will soon have a new chancellor. The Christian Democratic Union’s Friedrich Merz is the firm favorite.
Merz has not shied away from blasting Scholz’s economic policies and from linking them to the lackluster state of Europe’s largest economy. He argues that a government under his leadership would give the economy the boost it needs.
Experts speaking to CNBC were less sure.
“There is a high risk that Germany will get a refurbished economic model after the elections, but not a brand new model that makes the competition jealous,” Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at ING, told CNBC.
The CDU/CSU economic agenda
The CDU, which on a federal level ties up with regional sister party the Christian Social Union, is running on a “typical economic conservative program,” Brzeski said.
It includes income and corporate tax cuts, fewer subsidies and less bureaucracy, changes to social benefits, deregulation, support for innovation, start-ups and artificial intelligence and boosting investment among other policies, according to CDU/CSU campaigners.
“The weak parts of the positions are that the CDU/CSU is not very precise on how it wants to increase investments in infrastructure, digitalization and education. The intention is there, but the details are not,” Brzeski said, noting that the union appears to be aiming to revive Germany’s economic model without fully overhauling it.
“It is still a reform program which pretends that change can happen without pain,” he said.
Geraldine Dany-Knedlik, head of forecasting at research institute DIW Berlin, noted that the CDU is also looking to reach gross domestic product growth of around 2% again through its fiscal and economic program called “Agenda 2030.”
But reaching such levels of economic expansion in Germany “seems unrealistic,” not just temporarily, but also in the long run, she told CNBC.
Germany’s GDP declined in both 2023 and 2024. Recent quarterly growth readings have also been teetering on the verge of a technical recession, which has so far been narrowly avoided. The German economy shrank by 0.2% in the fourth quarter, compared with the previous three-month stretch, according to the latest reading.
Europe’s largest economy faces pressure in key industries like the auto sector, issues with infrastructure like the country’s rail network and a housebuilding crisis.
Dany-Knedlik also flagged the so-called debt brake, a long-standing fiscal rule that is enshrined in Germany’s constitution, which limits the size of the structural budget deficit and how much debt the government can take on.
Whether or not the clause should be overhauled has been a big part of the fiscal debate ahead of the election. While the CDU ideally does not want to change the debt brake, Merz has said that he may be open to some reform.
“To increase growth prospects substantially without increasing debt also seems rather unlikely,” DIW’s Dany-Knedlik said, adding that, if public investments were to rise within the limits of the debt brake, significant tax increases would be unavoidable.
“Taking into account that a 2 Percent growth target is to be reached within a 4 year legislation period, the Agenda 2030 in combination with conservatives attitude towards the debt break to me reads more of a wish list than a straight forward economic growth program,” she said.
Franziska Palmas, senior Europe economist at Capital Economics, sees some benefits to the plans of the CDU-CSU union, saying they would likely “be positive” for the economy, but warning that the resulting boost would be small.
“Tax cuts would support consumer spending and private investment, but weak sentiment means consumers may save a significant share of their additional after-tax income and firms may be reluctant to invest,” she told CNBC.
Palmas nevertheless pointed out that not everyone would come away a winner from the new policies. Income tax cuts would benefit middle- and higher-income households more than those with a lower income, who would also be affected by potential reductions of social benefits.
Coalition talks ahead
Following the Sunday election, the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be left to find a coalition partner to form a majority government, with the Social Democratic Party or the Green party emerging as the likeliest candidates.
The parties will need to broker a coalition agreement outlining their joint goals, including on the economy — which could prove to be a difficult undertaking, Capital Economics’ Palmas said.
“The CDU and the SPD and Greens have significantly different economic policy positions,” she said, pointing to discrepancies over taxes and regulation. While the CDU/CSU want to reduce both items, the SPD and Greens seek to raise taxes and oppose deregulation in at least some areas, Palmas explained.
The group is nevertheless likely to hold the power in any potential negotiations as it will likely have their choice between partnering with the SPD or Greens.
“Accordingly, we suspect that the coalition agreement will include most of the CDU’s main economic proposals,” she said.