Uninsured Driver Legislation Filed in Texas

March 14, 2005

  • March 14, 2005 at 8:56 am
    Patrick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As I read all of the responses posted, it brings me to point out the vast differences in UMPD and UMBI laws between the states. Florida no longer requires proof of liability insurance. There went the screw drivers and pliers, huh! Other states have some pretty complex UM laws and regulations. Required proof of liability is what got us the “political” UM coverage because the politicians were unable or unwilling to put teeth into the requirement. So, you might say it’s a failed system from the start. However, I believe one of the small NE states actually has a virtual network set up with all auto insurance companies, state registration offices and law enforcement where current data about each driver/auto’s insurance is downloaded daily.

  • March 14, 2005 at 2:40 am
    Cut the Crud says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I was risk manager for a company with a fleet of around 400. I watched time and again as we were hit by an uninsured (and often unlicensed) driver who was merely written a citation by police (and often allowed to DRIVE away from the scene.) If these folks were taken to jail more often, even for just a day, it might help… Hopefully this new legislation will help, but a better idea is to void 3rd party liability to an uninsured driver involved in an accident which is NOT their fault. Since they have chosen not to insure other drivers against their negligence, they too should be uninsured against the negligence of those other (insured) drivers.

  • March 14, 2005 at 2:53 am
    Randy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A better idea is tow the uninsured vehicle immediately and require 6 month paid in full to get vehicle out of pound.

  • March 14, 2005 at 3:47 am
    Superjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think both ideas have merit but still missing is one of the reasons for the cost of UMPD being so high. As an adjuster of 36 yrs. I have worked too many claims to count on UMPD where the insureds verhicle was damaged by persons unkown whereas in reality they backed into a pole, sideswiped a guard rail, or otherwise picked up a “whisky dent” knowing full well they were at fault but they had no collision insurance. And, even if they were struck while “parked and unattended” who is to say the perp. was not insured. To me, paying a UMPD claim when the perp. is unknown was not the intent of UMPD coverage, only the intent of an out of control judicial system that “makes law, not iterpret it” as intended by the constitution.

  • March 14, 2005 at 3:53 am
    Superjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Addendum to my previous post: The requirement to file a police report to be able to file a UMPD claim is a joke. The cop shop takes these reports by phone and never investigates unless it is a “biggie”, never a bent fender. Also, how many UMPD claims have we probably paid when the claimant carrier has paid the insured for their damage but the UMPD claim comes through and gets processed before CLUE has it as a matter of record ? Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen, I will now descend from my soapbox.

  • March 14, 2005 at 4:07 am
    Louisiana does it already says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To kind of put the above responses together;

    Louisiana already impounds vehicles of persons who are not insured and the owners do not get them back if they were uninsured. They have the No Pay No Play law where if you are involved in an accident that is not your fault and the other party is insured, you will not receive any payment for your damages if you did not have liability coverage in force. That makes everyone accountable.

  • March 14, 2005 at 4:22 am
    Drewboy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In Illinois, my understanding is that for UMPD coverage to apply, not only must a police report be filed, but the driver must be identifiable. In other words, UMPD doesn’t cover hit ‘n runs.

  • March 14, 2005 at 4:29 am
    TX Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At least this is on the radar screen. Something has got to be better than nothing.

  • March 14, 2005 at 4:58 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When I was in law enforcement in Florida, the law allowed us, if we pulled over a vehicle with no proof of insurance, to confiscate on sight the license plates. They were held at the post for a short period of time to allow drivers who had coverage, but no proof in possesion, to get proof and get their tag back. After the cut-off, the tag was sent to Tallahassee. All of the Troopers in my unit carried screwdrivers and pliers.

    I left Florida in 1991, so have no idea whether the law is still in effect, and how succesful it was. I do know that I never let a vehicle without proof of insurance leave without the tag being removed.

  • March 15, 2005 at 9:47 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If Florida did away with requiring proof of insurance, how do they enforce their financial responsibility law? Or, did they do away with that, as well?

    What it will boil down to is whether Texas is willing to do what it takes to create a personal auto liability system that is affordable enough so that the Democrats in the legislature won’t be able to block not only mandatorty coverage that will (excuse me, should) work, but also a scheme that will be easy and meaningful to enforce.

    Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, nor do I see it lasting long if it did. There are too many special interests (read: Lawyers) ready to not just throw the baby out with the bath water, but try to drown the baby first in the bathwater, if any part doesn’t work exactly to their expectations (read: make money in the tort system).

    I like the idea from Louisiana, where if you don’t have the mandatory coverage, you can’t get into the tort system to collect your damages from a third party if you aren’t at fault. How did LA get around the old “access to the courts” argument?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*