Consider a D.C. resident who drives to work and keeps an older car because it’s paid off: If her monthly auto insurance premium jumps $25–$40, that money has to come from somewhere — the phone bill, after-school costs, or a grocery run. But that’s what a bill proposed to raise minimum coverage limits would likely do.
Washington, D.C., already has one of the most challenging auto insurance markets in the country. Premiums are high. Too many drivers are uninsured. And many residents are still struggling with the rising cost of living. Yet a proposal before the D.C. Council would likely make auto insurance more expensive for thousands of drivers — and could leave everyone more exposed to uninsured motorists on our roads.
The legislation would more than double the District’s mandatory minimum auto liability coverage, forcing drivers to carry at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident in bodily injury coverage, along with higher property damage limits. Supporters argue the change is overdue. It’s fair to acknowledge the bill exists to ensure crash victims are adequately protected, and that decades-old minimums can feel outdated as medical costs have climbed. But good intentions don’t change basic economics: when the government mandates more coverage, insurance costs go up.
Wisconsin offers a cautionary tale about raising required minimums without an affordability plan. In 2009, the state doubled liability minimums to $50,000/$100,000 (and $15,000 for property damage), and set future increases to be indexed to inflation. Wisconsin liability insurance premiums rose 9.9% in 2010, vs. 1.9% nationwide. The new governor and legislature restored the prior mandatory minimums, and premiums fell 2.7% in the state in 2012 at a time when they were going up around the country by 2.3%.
In D.C., a cost increase like this is not theoretical. Industry data show that nearly one-third of D.C. drivers currently carry coverage below the proposed new minimums. For those households, the bill would require the purchase of significantly more insurance — regardless of budget, driving history or individual needs. Higher required coverage means higher premiums, plain and simple.
This matters because D.C. drivers are already under strain. Inflation has driven up repair costs, medical expenses and insurance claims. Premiums have risen accordingly. Adding a new mandate on top of that reality risks pushing insurance out of reach for the very residents policymakers say they want to protect.
The consequences won’t stop with higher premiums. D.C. already has the highest uninsured motorist rate in the nation, with roughly 1 in 4 drivers estimated to be uninsured. That’s not just a statistic — it’s a daily risk faced by responsible drivers who follow the law and pay for coverage.
When insurance becomes more expensive, more drivers go without it. That’s not speculation; it’s what has happened in other jurisdictions that sharply increased required coverage without addressing affordability.
Ironically, that outcome would undermine the bill’s stated goal of improving protection after accidents. The best insurance coverage in the world doesn’t help if the driver who hits you has none at all. Increasing the number of uninsured motorists puts every insured driver at greater financial risk, leading to more unpaid claims, higher costs spread across the system, and ultimately higher premiums for everyone.
The bill also removes consumer choice by requiring drivers to carry underinsured or enhanced underinsured motorist coverage — coverage that protects you when the at-fault driver’s insurance isn’t enough to cover your losses — even if they previously opted out. While these coverages can be valuable, mandating them eliminates flexibility and further drives up costs, particularly for lower-income drivers who may prioritize affordability over additional protections.
Consumers already have the option to buy more coverage if they want it and can afford it. The question isn’t whether higher limits should be available; it’s whether they should be compulsory for everyone, regardless of circumstances.
There is also the long-term impact to consider. The proposal includes automatic future increases in required coverage, locking in higher costs without future legislative debate. That means today’s affordability concerns will only grow over time.
Improving safety and financial protection after crashes is a worthy goal. But policies that raise costs, reduce choice and risk increasing the number of uninsured drivers move D.C. in the wrong direction. A better approach would focus on affordability, enforcement against uninsured driving, and giving consumers the information they need to choose coverage that works for them — not pricing more residents out of the system.
D.C. should devote resources toward reducing uninsured driving through public education, stronger enforcement combined with more affordable penalties, and easier compliance tools like simple payment plans and real-time verification at registration and renewal.
Think back to the D.C. resident who drives to work and keeps her older car because it’s paid off. She’s already doing everything right — following the law, paying her premiums, making it work on a tight budget. She doesn’t need a mandate that forces her to choose between coverage and groceries. D.C. drivers like her deserve solutions that make insurance more accessible, not requirements that make it harder to afford and easier to go without.
Tom Glassic is executive director of the District of Columbia Insurance Federation.