A good start would be requiring the minimum to be 50/100. While Mass is 20/40, the vast majority of states are only 25/50, so it's not like we're way under par. The reason for 50/100/50 (last one being property damage) would be due to the HCOL, types of vehicles, etc. Hit someone in Mass and chances are you're going to be in more financial trouble than hitting someone in Tennessee, even though Ten is 25/50.

> don't have access to the tools that you had. Instead, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation that indicates that carrying $8 Million of liability per victim should lead to less than a $2,000 increase in premiums for the average driver. ($8 Million per death times 40,000 deaths divided by 200 Million drivers).

Even if this actually only raised premiums by $2k, it doesn't sound realistic from the perspective of the insurance companies. Not to mention the amount of fraud it would encourage.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but back at my old agency I heard that insurance companies run on razor thin margins, majority of the money they make is from the interest they make.

Even 50/100 means that each injured would only get under $6k.

>For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

Liability coverage isn't a major factor for your premium. I used to be an independent insurance agent and sold over 600 policies to people in various states. I'd play all day with coverages from different carriers to try to find people the best price. Bigger factors are credit, how long you've had coverage and at what level, collision coverage + deductible, and accidents/tickets.

People who are insuring themselves for 100/300/100 and have had this for 10 years are usually getting much better rates than someone insuring with state minimums who have only ever had state minimums, all other factors being equal.