Awake Foundation / Insurance Transparency Reform
System design

The Perfect Disclosure System

Begin with the information a reasonable person needs to make a decision, then design the law around delivering that information before unnecessary litigation consumes years of life.

The existing system often answers the coverage question too late. The proposed system treats coverage identification, preservation, and UM/UIM coordination as an early claims function rather than a reward for filing suit.

Today: the information gate

Crash
Visible insurance card
Unknown owner / employer / excess layers
Settlement or release pressure
File lawsuit
Discovery
Coverage architecture finally emerges
The paradox: the claimant may need the coverage architecture to decide whether litigation is economically and personally rational, yet the strongest disclosure mechanisms often become available only after litigation begins.

The reform model

Crash + preservation
Identify driver, owner, employer
Verified coverage search
Coverage Search Record
UM/UIM carrier receives same record
Damages compared with coverage
Informed choice: resolve or litigate

What the Coverage Search Record would contain

FieldPurposePrivacy treatment
Insurer and policy typeIdentifies the coverage sourceDisclose
Named insured / relevant insured statusConnects policy to person, vehicle, owner, employer, or businessDisclose only what is relevant
Policy period and liability limitsDetermines temporal applicability and available layerDisclose
Form and endorsement identifiersAllows the contract to be reconstructed and auditedDisclose
Umbrella / excess / commercial / HNOA search resultCloses predictable secondary branchesDisclose result and responsive policies
Coverage dispute or reservation statusPrevents a nominal limit from being mistaken for admitted coverageDisclose status, not privileged legal analysis
Premium and payment informationNot needed to evaluate third-party liability coverageRedact / do not require

Three decision gates

Gate 1 — Coverage

Do identified policies plausibly cover the loss, and are all reasonable owner/employer/excess leads closed?

Gate 2 — Evidence

Is there objective evidence worth preserving or obtaining before choosing litigation?

Gate 3 — Proportionality

What recovery is realistically available, and is the expected benefit worth the cost in money, time, health, and attention?

Why UM/UIM belongs inside the same architecture

UM/UIM is not a separate universe. A vehicle may appear uninsured at the scene while the owner has coverage, the driver has another applicable policy, or an employer/business policy responds. Conversely, liability coverage may exist but be insufficient. The claimant's own UM/UIM carrier should receive the verified liability-coverage record directly rather than requiring the injured person to repeatedly carry information between companies.

Model design rule: one verified coverage search should be reusable by the claimant, liability carriers, and the claimant's UM/UIM carrier, subject to reasonable privacy controls.

Where litigation still belongs

Transparency does not eliminate litigation. It makes litigation a more informed choice. Suit remains appropriate when liability, causation, damages, coverage, bad faith, or legal responsibility is genuinely disputed. The reform objective is to stop using litigation merely as the key that unlocks basic insurance information.

Primary authorities

Authorities checked September 2026. Court rules and statutes can change; verify the current text before relying on a procedural deadline.