Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/27/2002 01:40 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 40-REVOKE DRIVER'S LIC. FOR FATAL ACCIDENT
MS. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), noted that the committee had already heard HB 40 and a CS
was drafted according to suggestions made by Senators Donley and
Therriault. She explained the following changes in the J
version:
· On page 2, line 1, the word "shall" was changed to "may" to
allow for the discretion of the court in the revocation of a
driver's license.
· On page 2, line 10, the possible term of revocation was
changed from one year to up to three years to give the court
more discretion in consideration of circumstances.
· Page 3, lines 1-4 deleted the provision that the findings of
the court would not be admissible in subsequent civil,
criminal or administrative action. A provision was inserted
allowing the family of the victim to testify at proceedings
addressing revocation.
· Page 3, line 21 changed the effective date to September 1,
2002 rather than 2001.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said those were excellent changes.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the Administration supported the CS.
MS. CARPENETI said yes.
SENATOR DONLEY moved the J version of HB 40 as the working
document.
There being no objection, the J version of HB 40 was adopted as
the working document.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there were any further questions for Ms.
Carpeneti. There were none.
MS. KIM ROSS, Staff to Senator Cowdery, read the following
testimony from Mr. Alan Christopherson:
I understand that Sen. Robin Taylor, Sen. Dave Donley,
Sen. John Cowdery and others are reviewing HB 40. I
would like the committee to readdress the applicable
law(s) regarding uninsured motorists. As background,
our family is fully insured for four vehicles by two
national insurance firms.
The reason for my testimony is that my wife's auto has
been struck by two different uninsured motorists in the
last three years. The most recent incident occurred
last week and the other three years ago. In both
cases, the uninsured motorist was allowed to leave the
scene of the accident and in both cases the motorists
have been unwilling or unable to pay. In the case of
the first driver, we understand that he is still
driving three years after our accident without
insurance.
Although our insurance policies include uninsured
drivers coverage, our experience has shown that not all
repair costs such as the use of rental cars during
repairs are compensated by this coverage. Often,
insurance companies attempt to recover these costs
after the fact by the legal system or by garnishing a
motorist's future Permanent Fund Dividend. We found
these processes to be slow and flawed. We did receive
partial compensation from the first accident, although
only a portion of our costs were repaid by the
insurance company three years after the accident.
I understand the intent of the original bill was to
require each driver to show proof of insurance within
ten days after an accident or lose the privilege of an
Alaska driver's license. Before writing this testimony
I called the Anchorage Chief of Police about this
subject. He had me talk with a sergeant in Internal
Affairs, who confirmed that the current laws related to
uninsured motorists are not effective. He told me (as
I suspected) many uninsured motorists continue to drive
without a license or insurance. The police suggest
they could use tougher laws with regard to uninsured
motorists. In the case of my wife's most recent
accident by an uninsured motorist, the police could
only recommend to the uninsured motorist that he
provide compensation before he drove away.
Please consider adopting a law similar to what I
understand the state of Arizona has in effect. If the
operator of the vehicle does not have a valid insurance
certificate for the vehicle, it is immediately
impounded. The vehicle is not released until proof of
insurance is provided.
Please send the growing number of uninsured drivers a
message that they cannot continue to drive and put
others at financial risk.
As Sen. Cowdery and I know from our recent visit to
Elmendorf AFB we were required to show a valid drivers
license, a current vehicle registration and proof of
insurance to drive on the base. I think the same rules
should apply to the streets of Anchorage.
I realize that the issues related to uninsured motorist
insurance and the bill before the committee is more
complicated than the ideas I have presented in my
testimony. I trust that your committee will fully
study all available options and will determine the best
course of action.
I would like to thank the committee for hearing my
comments and for your tireless efforts in these and
other important matters before the State of Alaska.
Sincerely, Alan Christopherson
1:45 p.m.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said his staff, Senator Cowdery and Senator
Donley had all communicated with Mr. Christopherson. He said
while his testimony was not directly related to the bill, it did
relate to the revocation or suspension of driving privileges. He
asked Ms. Carpeneti to tell the committee what DOL was doing to
enforce the law requiring the revocation of the license of a
person without insurance who was involved in an accident. He
said Mr. Christopherson's testimony indicated that the Chief of
Police in Anchorage believed the law was not being enforced. He
asked why it wasn't being enforced.
MS. CARPENETI said she didn't know which statute Mr.
Christopherson was referring to. She said she would be happy to
talk with the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to find out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said a former legislator did subrogation work to
collect for damages on behalf of insurance companies. The
insurance companies would refer cases in which their liability
coverage had paid for the damages and the person causing the
accident had not paid them. He said the former legislator told
him about three years previously that Governor Knowles'
administration made a decision to not revoke driver's licenses
because it was too much work and they had higher priority issues
to deal with. He communicated with DMV and was informed that
they were revoking licenses. He said Mr. Christopherson's
testimony indicated that DMV wasn't following up on people who
failed to pay for the damages they had caused. He said they
should be revoking the driver's license until the money had been
paid.
SENATOR DONLEY said during a budget reduction proposal DMV said
they would have to stop enforcing the Motor Vehicle Safety
Responsibility Act that paralleled the Mandatory Motor Vehicle
Insurance provisions. He remembered working with DMV to provide
funding to continue enforcement. He had not heard that DMV
wasn't enforcing the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. He
would be very disappointed if they were not.
MR. CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director, DMV, confirmed that DMV was
enforcing both the Mandatory Motor Vehicle Insurance provisions
and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. He said both
the laws involved loss of a driver's license if a person was in
an accident and didn't provide proof of insurance. He said the
Mandatory Motor Vehicle Insurance provisions applied to all
drivers involved in an accident, whether they were the at-fault
driver or an innocent party. He said DMV looked at the accident
report to determine whether there was a possibility that a person
could be held liable. At that point, the financial
responsibility law went into effect and the driver's license
could be suspended for up to three years or until the damages
from the accident were paid. He said DMV had identified those
functions as possible program reductions in years past but never
had to cut them because funding was made available.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the person got their driver's license
back after three years whether they paid the damages or not.
MR. HOSACK said one of the provisions for getting a license back
after three years was an SR-22 insurance policy. He thought the
reason for the three-year period was because civil liability
limitations ran out after three years.
SENATOR DONLEY said a judgment didn't expire after three years.
MR. HOSACK said that was correct. He said the suspension
continued until the judgment was satisfied.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thought a judgment had to be renewed every six
years if a person failed to execute.
SENATOR COWDERY said revocation of a driver's license wasn't a
very good penalty because people continued to drive without a
license. He asked if the vehicle could be impounded.
MR. HOSACK said when a person was pulled over by a police officer
they could be cited for driving while their license was suspended
or revoked. He said their license could be revoked again and
they could get jail time in some cases. He wasn't aware of a
vehicle forfeiture or impoundment provision.
SENATOR DONLEY believed there was mandatory jail time for second
offenses.
MS. CARPENETI said that was correct. She said there was a ten-
day jail time for the first offense, which could be suspended on
the condition that the person perform 80 hours of community
service. She said there was a mandatory jail time of ten days
for the second offense.
SENATOR COWDERY said that didn't seem adequate. He knew of a
person in the Wasilla area who was driving with a suspended
license and tried to use his brother's license when he was pulled
over. He said the man got ten days for that second offense. He
said if the problem was going to be solved, the vehicle must be
impounded regardless of ownership. He said we weren't getting
the attention of people who had had their license revoked with
the penalties in place.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Mr. Christopherson's testimony led him to
believe that if a police officer pulled somebody without
insurance over, the officer would allow the person to get back in
the car and drive home and tell them not to do it anymore. He
asked if police officers could impound the vehicle of a person
driving without insurance.
SENATOR COWDERY said Mr. Christopherson told him the person was
able to get in their car and drive home after the accident. He
thought there were problems with the law.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that was a choice the officer made.
MR. HOSACK said there was no requirement to carry proof of
insurance in the automobile and therefore an officer wouldn't ask
for proof of insurance during a normal traffic stop.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said there was an accident in Mr.
Christopherson's case.
MR. HOSACK said in the case of an accident the officer indicated
whether the person had insurance on the accident report. He said
enforcement then fell to DMV to take action against the license
of a person who didn't provide proof of insurance. He said there
was no law allowing the officer to impound the vehicle at the
accident scene.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the officer would still allow the
person to drive away if he was told there was no insurance on a
vehicle that had been in an accident.
MR. HOSACK said yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why the persons who impacted Mr.
Christopherson's vehicles would still be driving.
MR. HOSACK said they were probably driving without licenses. He
said DMV or the court could take the license away but once the
person left the office or the court it was very difficult to keep
them from driving. He said even if their car was taken away they
could find another vehicle to drive. He said they would almost
have to be locked up for the term of their suspension to be kept
from driving.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mr. Hosack could work with Mr.
Christopherson's wife to determine whether the parties had Alaska
driver's licenses.
2:00 p.m.
MR. HOSACK said he could.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thought insurance companies notified DMV if they
were unable to get reimbursement for damages caused by an
uninsured driver.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the burden was on the perpetrator.
MR. HOSACK said it was. He said they had to provide DMV with
proof of insurance. He said DMV did random spot checks as well.
He said their best indicator was the injured party's insurance
company. He said if the insurance company paid out of their
uninsured motorist claim they would go to the at-fault party to
get reimbursement. He said if they couldn't get reimbursement,
they oftentimes notified the DMV. DMV then checked their system
and could take action on the license.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said there were a couple of good triggering
events that motivated DMV to revoke licenses.
SENATOR DONLEY asked for an estimate of how many licenses were
suspended under the Mandatory Motor Vehicle Insurance provisions
and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act the previous
year.
MR. HOSACK said he didn't have those numbers readily available.
He said DMV did collect those numbers and he would get them to
the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY said he asked the Division of Insurance (DOI) to
compare the number of accidents to the number of those that had
suspended licenses. He said DOI estimated 18% of motorists were
uninsured.
MR. HOSACK said DMV checked the percentage of the number of
accident reports that involved uninsured motorists. He said DMV
had to take action on 14% to 16% of those licenses in the
previous three years.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there were any further questions for Mr.
Hosack. There were none.
MS. CARPENETI clarified that ten days was the mandatory minimum
sentence for a second offense. She said it was a class A
misdemeanor so the person could be put in jail for up to one
year.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Mary Christopherson to provide
testimony.
MS. MARY CHRISTOPHERSON said she seemed to run into only those
drivers who were uninsured. She said one insurance company
estimated that 22% to 30% of motorists in Alaska were uninsured.
She said she had been in two accidents in the past ten years. In
both cases the other party was uninsured. She said in both cases
the other party was able to get into their car and drive away
after the accident report was filed. She said it took over three
years to get reimbursed for one of the accidents in which there
was substantial damage to her vehicle. She paid $100 per year
for uninsured motorist insurance coverage with a $250 deductible.
She also had to pay $280 for a rental car. She said the person
was probably still driving without insurance. She said people
who didn't obey the laws regarding insurance coverage weren't
going to care if their license was taken away. She said the
vehicle needed to be impounded when they got into an accident and
they could get their car back after they proved they had
insurance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Ms. Christopherson for her testimony. He
said that wasn't the bill in front of the committee. He said
Senator Cowdery had indicated a strong interest in such a bill.
He and Senator Donley had been working on the issue for several
years.
SENATOR DONLEY said they had been told for many years that it
would be cost-prohibitive to confiscate motor vehicles. He said
it was good news that the Municipality of Anchorage had proved
the opposite and made a profit with their drunk driving vehicle
confiscation program. He said the key to dealing with the
problem at the state level would be to authorize local
governments to pass ordinances that would allow them to
confiscate vehicles if people were driving with a suspended
license or without insurance.
SENATOR COWDERY said he carried his proof of insurance in his
pocket. He thought many people got the proof of insurance and
just didn't put it in their vehicle. He thought one or two
impoundments would get their attention. He said he would like to
work toward that and thought he could fit the language in a bill
he had coming before the committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was anybody else who wished to
testify on HB 40. There was nobody.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SCS CSHB 40(JUD) out of committee with
attached fiscal note and individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SCS CSHB 40(JUD) moved out of committee
with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|