Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/05/2020 03:00 PM 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 | |
| Presentation: Transition to the Cloud | |
| HB233 | |
| HB264 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 264-PROOF OF INSURANCE: UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS
4:16:34 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 264, "An Act relating to proof
of financial responsibility after certain motor vehicle
accidents."
4:17:08 PM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor of HB 264, relayed that HB 264 addresses
the statute on unsatisfied judgements [AS 28.20.330(b)]; upon
receiving an unsatisfied judgement, one must obtain a proof of
financial responsibility (POFR) - commonly referred to as an SR-
22 certificate. He pointed out that an SR-22 is not insurance,
but a certificate that states that a high-risk individual has
insurance. He defined that a high-risk individual is someone
with a "driving under the influence (DUI)" conviction or an
"unsatisfied judgement." An unsatisfied judgement is a
judgement issued against someone who had a motor vehicle
accident causing death, bodily injury, or damage to property
over $501, and who did not pay for damages. Subsequently, the
person's license is revoked by the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) [Department of Administration (DOA)] and is not returned
unless and until the judgement is staid or satisfied.
MR. HARRIS turned the committee's attention to the document from
DMV, included in the committee packet, entitled "SR-22
Insurance," to review the time requirements for an SR-22: for a
first offense driving while intoxicated (DWI), the requirement
is 5 years; a second offense is 10 years; a third offense is 20
years; a fourth offense is a lifetime requirement. In addition
to a fourth offense DWI, just one unsatisfied judgement also
results in the lifetime requirement. He offered that under HB
264, when the judgement is staid or satisfied, the SR-22 would
be required for 3 years, not a lifetime.
MR. HARRIS referred to House Bill 409 [introduced during
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, (2017-2018)], which
addressed unsatisfied judgements and DUIs was not supported by
DOA. The proposed legislation only addresses unsatisfied
judgement.
MR. HARRIS referred to testimony during the presentation on
"Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry" [2/27/20 House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting] in which the testifier offered that
paying for the SR-22 was very difficult for someone released
from prison and struggling with many financial challenges. Mr.
Harris relayed that the Division of Insurance [Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)] provided
information that the SR-22 can cost from 5-50 percent of a
standard premium. The testifier stated that he was paying
[$500] per month to retain a driver's license. Mr. Harris
expressed his belief that the requirement targets low-income
people and people who are trying to improve themselves. The
intent of the proposed legislation is to remedy that.
4:22:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why 3 years was chosen for the length
of time [an SR-22 would be required].
MR. HARRIS responded that 3 years was arbitrarily chosen but
seemed to represent an appropriate length of time for someone to
prove he/she has "fixed" the mistake.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his desire for the legislature
to evaluate categorically the value that SR-22 offers to the
public. The SR-22 laws were put into statute before Alaska
required car insurance; HB 264 offers a temporary fix; the 3
years is arbitrary.
MR. HARRIS referred to the Legislative Research Services
document, dated 11/21/19 and entitled "SR-22 Automobile
Insurance Requirements," not included in the committee packet,
to describe the requirement put in place in [1959], which read:
The legislature is concerned over the rising toll of
motor vehicle accidents and the suffering and loss
thereby inflicted. The legislature determines that it
is a matter of grave concern that motorists shall be
financially responsible for their negligent acts ...."
MR. HARRIS added that the state's mandatory insurance laws were
enacted many years later.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether SR-22 being a lifetime
requirement was enacted under HB 49 [signed into law 7/8/19] or
previously.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his understanding is that HB
49 did not address the SR-22 requirements but did address the
reentrant's ability to get back a driver's license to become a
productive citizen.
4:26:47 PM
JOANN OLSEN, Interim Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), responded that she was not
familiar with HB 49.
MR. HARRIS offered to follow up.
4:27:25 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), explained
that an SR-22 filing is a certificate to the state that the
person has liability insurance on the vehicle he/she is driving
or to which the person has access.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an explanation for why an SR-
22 is needed when car insurance is mandatory. He opined that it
seems redundant.
MS. WING-HEIER answered that she cannot explain why but knows
that when renewing vehicle tags, a box verifying insurance must
be checked. Similarly, the SR-22 serves as a second
certification of liability insurance for an individual with an
unsatisfied judgement or with the violation convictions -
mentioned by Mr. Harris - in order to drive or have access to a
vehicle. She defined "have access to" as meaning a vehicle that
the person may drive but not necessarily own; it is the vehicle
itself that requires the SR-22.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the SR-22 costs so much when
premiums are paid to the insurance company and the SR-22 merely
verifies that the insurance policy is in place.
MS. WING-HEIER answered that part of the reason is the violation
itself. She explained the other part as follows: The division
looked at 23 insurance companies in the state and only 6 were
providing SR-22s to insurers who requested them. The insurers
can charge rates based on a driver's record; for a record with a
DUI or reckless driving, insurance will cost more. The SR-22 is
somewhat of a "scarlet letter" indicating that there is a reason
the person has been asked to keep a certificate on file with the
state; the insurers are, therefore, hesitant to insure someone
with an SR-22. That person may be moved to a sub-standard
insurance market and have a surcharge in addition. The
surcharge is strictly for liability insurance but is applied to
the premium's comprehension and collision coverages as well.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 264 would be held over.