Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/13/2018 10:15 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB409 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 409 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 409-DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
10:19:26 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to identification
cards; relating to vehicle registration fee rates; relating to
changes of address; relating to driver's license fees; and
relating to financial responsibility for motor vehicles."
10:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
LS1516\D.2, Martin, 4/12/18, which read:
Page 4, lines 9 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 11. AS 28.20.330 is amended to read:
Sec. 28.20.330. Suspension to continue until
judgments paid and proof given. (a) If there is an
unsatisfied judgment against a person requiring
suspension under AS 28.20.270, the person's license or
nonresident's operating privilege shall remain
suspended and may [SHALL] not be renewed, nor shall a
license or registration be issued in the name of the
person, including a person not previously licensed,
until the judgment is stayed or satisfied. In
addition, a person who did not have insurance at the
time of the accident giving rise to the judgment shall
provide [AND UNTIL THE PERSON GIVES] proof of
financial responsibility, subject to the exceptions in
AS 28.20.310, 28.20.320, and 28.20.370, before the
person's license or nonresident's operating privilege
may be issued or renewed.
(b) The proof required by (a) of this section
shall be maintained for three years from the date the
judgment is stayed or satisfied [DURING THE PERIOD THE
PERSON HAS A LICENSE OR NONRESIDENT'S OPERATING
PRIVILEGE]."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:20:05 AM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, advised that HB 409 changes
the lifetime requirement for SR-22 insurance to a ten-year
requirement for failure to pay a judgement. Amendment 1 to HB
409 changes the ten-year requirement to a three-year
requirement, which is in line with most of the SR-22 insurance
requirements ["SR-22 Requirements" handout contained within the
committee packet]. Amendment 1, she explained, establishes that
this requirement comes into play for uninsured motorists at the
time of an accident. She added that if the person was properly
insured, but the insurance cap was too low to pay for the
entirety of the damages, the person would still be required to
pay the judgment but would not be faced with the SR-22 insurance
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled testimony during the 4/12/18
hearing on HB 409, wherein there was a 30-day window and a 60-
day window. He further recalled that the 30-day window allowed
that if the person paid the damages within 30-days, "you are
clean," and if the person paid within 60-days they would have a
20-year SR-22 insurance requirement, and if the person did not
pay the damages within 60-days, they had a lifetime requirement
for SR-22 insurance. He asked whether Amendment 1 takes out the
30-day and 60-day requirement and makes it all a three-year
requirement whether or not a person is able to pay the damages.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE replied that Representative Tuck was correct.
10:21:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked that if a person did not pay their
damages within 30 days, should they still have to be able to pay
for 3 years (audio difficulties).
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested an explanation of SR-22
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL advised that SR-22 insurance basically
provides the same coverage to a driver, but it puts a person
into a special risk category, so the person pays more for
insurance. He added that the cost could be two or three times
more than regular insurance because the person is deemed a
higher risk due to whatever event led to the requirement of the
SR-22 insurance. He pointed out that under Amendment 1, if a
driver does not have insurance and they incur damages, they are
faced with the three-year requirement. Under current law, if a
person is uninsured and is involved in a vehicle accident, they
pay three years of SR-22 insurance, "whether you pay it or not."
In the event a person is insured, and whether or not they can
pay the damages, that person is not required to obtain SR-22
insurance because they were playing by the rules and obtained
insurance. In the event the person's insurance policy does not
cover all of the damages, there is still a judgment against the
person except they are not penalized with the requirement of
obtaining SR-22 insurance.
10:23:40 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. Schlingheyde could
confirm Representative Wool's explanation.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE advised that Representative Wool was correct,
Amendment 1 does bring it in line with regular uninsured
penalties. She explained to Representative LeDoux that the DMV
does not actually require the person to pay higher premiums, but
rather it is a form the insurance company sends to the DMV
stating that the person does indeed carry insurance. The
insurance companies are aware that if a person needs that form
because they were in an accident, they are deemed a high-risk
driver and insurance companies are allowed to raise the premiums
for high risk drivers.
10:24:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that this legislation simply
requires people to prove they have insurance and asked why an
insurance company would think someone was a high-risk driver
simply because they had an accident that not covered by
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that SR-22 insurance is a
requirement that some people must have for a license, and
insurance companies use that knowledge and charge people more
money for a policy knowing the person cannot drive without that
SR-22 insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection to Amendment 1.
10:26:10 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected to Amendment 1 for purposes of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered a scenario of an uninsured motorist
driving around, gets into an accident, incurs damages, and the
person must pay the damages and also buy SR-22 insurance because
"the DMV says that this person was driving without insurance."
The insurance company must then send a form to the DMV advising
that the person does now have insurance, and every year the form
must be sent to the DMV. In the event an insured driver is
involved in an accident and incurs damages they cannot pay, this
amendment removes the SR-22 insurance requirement, he
reiterated.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that it would make more sense to
require that everyone prove they have insurance when they get
their license.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that some states do have that
requirement. In Alaska, a person must "sign something" stating
they do have insurance, and he described it as a "good faith
system" but if someone is untruthful and gets caught, they are
penalized.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that "there is a lot to dig into
with SR-22 stuff."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:29:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved HB 409, 30-LS1516\D, as amended, from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee. There being no
objection, HB 409(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|