Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/24/1997 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 95 - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & LICENSING CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN, Prime Sponsor of HB 95, invited his Legislative Secretary, Kristy Tibbles, to present comments on HB 95, "An Act relating to motor vehicle registration, licensing, and insurance; and providing for an effective date." Number 067 KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary to Representative Joe Green, explained that HB 95 would allow the Department of Public Safety to create and maintain an insured motorist identification data base for the purpose of verifying compliance with the Alaska mandatory motor vehicle insurance provisions. She explained that the program would cross index drivers licenses and vehicle registrations with insurance policy records provided monthly by all insurance companies doing business in the state of Alaska. Ms. Tibbles stated that with the data base, a statewide list of uninsured motorists would be generated and warning letters would be mailed requiring motorists to provide proof of insurance, or to obtain insurance. MS. TIBBLES further stated that the data base would be available to peace officers which would allow them to electronically verify that a person had valid auto insurance. She advised members that the Department of Public Safety would contract with a third party agent to establish the insured motorist identification data base, and would provide confidentiality of those records. Ms. Tibbles stated that a provision of the bill prohibited public disclosure of information in the data base. MS. TIBBLES advised members that the cost to maintain the data base would be covered by a surcharge placed on all vehicle registrations. She noted that the uninsured motorist data base had had a significant impact on the insured motorist population in the state of Utah since its implementation in 1995. Ms. Tibbles pointed out that the statistical data demonstrated that Utah's uninsured motorists populations had been reduced by 43 percent. MS. TIBBLES advised members that the Division of Motor Vehicles supported the proposed legislation because it would provide them with a tool to identify uninsured motorists. She noted that the Alaska Peace Officers Association was also supportive of HB 95. Number 221 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if the state did not presently have authority to require motor vehicle insurance. MS. TIBBLES advised members that presently the state only required proof of insurance within 15 days after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if the method of reporting would include the submission of information that the policy written met the minimum coverage requirements. MS. TIBBLES stated that to her understanding, that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that a list of items that would be included in the report were reflected on the bottom of page 1, and continued on page 2; however, he did not see any specific mention of a particular policy meeting minimum standards. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that current law required minimum auto insurance coverage, and the concern expressed by Representative Porter would be addressed during the hearing. Number 360 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that after reviewing the fiscal note, it appeared as though the cost of the program was more than what the state expected to receive in revenues. She stated that the revenue was based on a fee of $1 per vehicle registration, and felt that charge could be raised to $2. MS. TIBBLES advised members that a work draft committee substitute, Version "K" had been crafted which raised the fee to $2. CHAIRMAN GREEN entertained a motion to adopt draft CSHB 95(JUD), Version "K" as the committee's working document. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved to adopt CSHB 95(JUD), Version "K", dated 3/22/97. There being no objection, CSHB 95(JUD) Version "K" was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated with the raise in the fee from $1 to $2, it was his understanding it would make the revenue neutral. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the Utah experience displayed a reduction in insurance rates. MS. TIBBLES advised members that it did decrease 43 percent. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that some insurance companies had expressed opposition to HB 95 and asked what their reasons were. MS. TIBBLES advised members that she thought insurance companies opposed the bill because it required them to report information on a monthly basis, and they were also concerned with the confidentiality of their insurance records. She pointed out that the bill required a third party contractor, and the insurance companies were concerned with the third party having access to that information; however, a disclosure section was included in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE assumed insurance companies may have expressed the same concern in Utah, and asked if their concerns had been met. MS. TIBBLES advised members the Utah bill had been enacted, but could not respond to what concerns had been expressed by the insurance companies. She stated that insurance companies in Utah were reporting information. Ms. Tibbles pointed out that other states that had implemented the program had done so just recently, so was hard to tell what their success rate had been. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Juanita Hensley with the Division of Motor Vehicles address the committee. JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, advised members they were in support of HB 95 because they felt it provided a means of accomplishing an efficiency measure for the division. Ms. Hensley pointed out that the division currently suspended the drivers license of anyone who was not insured at the point of being involved in a motor vehicle accident if damages were in excess of $501. MS. HENSLEY stated that of those who were involved in a motor vehicle accident during the past year, approximately 13 percent were uninsured. MS. HENSLEY stated with respect to having a repealer clause, the department would suggest it be until at least the year 2003, or possible 2005. She stated that going through the procurement process and requesting bids from third party contractors to set up a third party data base was quite time consuming. Ms. Hensley advised members that the division would like to have the program implemented for three full years in order to determine whether it was working or not. MS. HENSLEY advised members she would like to offer an amendment to Section 13, page 6, that would allow for a police officer to verify, electronically, whether a person was covered by auto insurance at the time a person was involved in a motor vehicle crash, or cited for a moving violation. Ms. Hensley pointed out that there was no language in Title 28 that would allow a police officer to cite a person if not insured, and felt that issue should be addressed. She noted that the only provision in current law that provided for a penalty was after an accident had occurred, then the division could suspend the individual's drivers license. Ms. Hensley advised members that the division could request the troopers, or the district attorney to file a misdemeanor or felony charge against the individual if they signed their vehicle registration form claiming they had auto insurance coverage when, in fact, they did not. MS. HENSLEY advised members that the states of Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and Arkansas had similar legislation pending. She pointed out that the state of Connecticut used a third party vendor just like the state of Utah, and the states of Oregon, New York, Nevada and Florida had data base requirements. Ms. Hensley did not know the percentage of reduced uninsured motorists in those states, or whether it had decreased premiums. Number 990 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she was under the impression that the state of Alaska did not have a mandatory auto insurance law except if an accident had occurred. She asked Ms. Hensley to explain what the current law provided for. MS. HENSLEY advised members that current law states that if an individual is involved in a motor vehicle accident, with $500 damage or more, the individual is required to submit proof to the division within 15 days of the accident that the vehicle was insured. Ms. Hensley pointed out that the law also required that at the time of registration the person must self-certify that the vehicle met the limits of liability under AS 28.22. She expressed that a person could do that; however, there was no mechanism to assure that an individual was maintaining auto insurance, nor was there a means to verify that a person had insurance at the time the vehicle is registered with the division. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if auto insurance was mandatory, would it be available to everyone in the state, such as an individual with a prior driving record. She was concerned whether a person could be denied insurance, for what ever reason, and felt there should be some type of insurance pool available in order to comply with the law. Number 1182 MS. HENSLEY could not speak specifically to that; however, advised members there was a provision in Alaska Statute that allows an individual to be placed in a pool and insurance companies would be required to insure those people. She reiterated that the state, at the present time, had no means to verify whether an individual had auto insurance or not, and the proposed legislation would allow for electronic verification of insurance at the time an individual registered his/her vehicle. Ms. Hensley pointed out that if the division could not verify insurance coverage through the data base, they would refuse to register the vehicle until the person could show proof of insurance. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she could understand the concern of the insurance companies with respect to the reporting requirements. She noted; however, that if a policy were cancelled, the division would not be aware of that until the next reporting date. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the proposed legislation addressed that situation. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the current law was weak and felt it should be made perfectly clear that auto insurance was mandatory in the state of Alaska. MS. HENSLEY advised members that the limits of liability insurance in Alaska were fairly low compared to other states. Number 1425 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that 13 percent of Alaskans were assumed to not carry auto insurance and the present time, and he felt that percentage would decrease if the proposed legislation were enacted. He stated that there had been testimony that reflected insurance rates had decreased because of such a law, and asked the reason for the decrease in insurance premiums. MS. HENSLEY could not answer that question, although would find out and report back to him. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he was concerned that if the proposed legislation were enacted it would have an effect on public safety enforcement, as well as the Department of Corrections. MS. HENSLEY did not see how it would impact public safety or corrections. She stated that presently 13 percent of individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents were not insured and she was responsible for suspending the drivers license of those individuals. Ms. Hensley pointed out that if HB 95 were enacted, there would be fewer suspensions and more people would be insured. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt they would be faced with the same problem the state currently had regarding the overall crime rate. He noted that even though the overall crime rate had declined, the state was arresting more people which increased the rate of incarceration. Representative Berkowitz stated that it would involve a cost component because it would be easier for a charge to be made immediately because of the electronic verification process, and ultimately it would result in a court proceeding and jail time. Number 1638 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the law was basically where it was eight or 10 years ago regarding financial responsibility. MS. HENSLEY advised members the division was not administering the financial responsibility law at all, with the exception of requiring an individual to file and show proof of SR 22 insurance after their license had been suspended. She noted that the program was eliminated the previous year through budget cuts, and the Division of Motor Vehicles lost four positions that administered that program. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that there was a mandatory insurance law that required an individual to indicate they have insurance at the time they register their vehicle, and asked if the law required a person to maintain that coverage. MS. HENSLEY advised members that the law required a person to show proof of insurance after the fact; 15 days after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that assuming a person would be concerned about falsifying a record and they did, in fact, have insurance at the time they so stated on their registration form, and then immediately cancelled their insurance, there was not a law, to his knowledge, that would require the person to maintain their insurance. MS. HENSLEY stated that that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what type of information would be reported by the officer. MS. HENSLEY advised members that was a grey area that she pointed out because she felt it needed to be addressed. Number 1754 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the present requirement for insurance certification and proof after the fact, that there would be $50,000 cap for any one individual injured. MS. HENSLEY advised members that it was $25,000 for a single injury, $50,000 for a single death, and $100,000 for multiple. Number 1804 JOHN GEORGE, representing the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII), advised members that NAII was a trade organization of property and casualty insurance companies who represent approximately 50 percent of all automobile insurance written in the state of Alaska with Allstate being the largest company and a number of other companies. MR. GEORGE advised members that the NAII wished the solution to uninsured drivers was as simple as the bill purported it to be. He stated that there were a number of things that really concerned the auto insurance industry, as well as some real misstatements of fact. MR. GEORGE stated that according to the Division of Motor vehicles, the state had a 13 percent uninsured rate. He noted that if members were to look across the nation, most states would be very happy if only 13 percent of their driving population was uninsured. He was not sure what the rate was in Utah, although he would be interested in finding out and would bet it was not below 13 percent. Mr. George pointed out that the state of Utah did not actually audit the program, but the contractor audits their own program and it was their figures that would reflect a reduction in the number of uninsured motorists. Mr. George pointed out that the proposed legislation reflects that the state "may" audit the contractor, and the NAII would like to see an audit required, if enacted into law. MR. GEORGE advised members that the NAII felt the numbers coming out of Utah were questionable for a number of reasons. He stated that it was his understanding that the vendor in that state was a sole source vendor who came up with the idea and presented it to the state of Utah. That vendor got the sole source contract, and also reported the data, which appeared somewhat "fishy" to the NAII. MR. GEORGE advised members that the USAA, a member company of the NAII, reported that it cost them approximately $6 per policy to gather the data and report it to the third party contractor in Utah. He noted that that was in addition to the fee that would be charged to the person when they registered their vehicle, and under HB 95 that would result in $8 per vehicle. Mr. George expressed that he had three vehicles so that would amount to approximately $25 that he would have to pay to make sure the 13 percent would get caught. He stated that there were many people in the state of Alaska who refuse to buy insurance, and would find a way around it. MR. GEORGE pointed out that the NAII had found that the most significant number of people who did not have auto insurance was because of the cost of insurance. He stated that raising the cost of insurance would not help those people at all. Mr. George advised members he did not know how to help those people, although there was an assigned risk plan where everyone who could afford insurance could get insurance. He added that insurance was mandated and therefore, the insurance industry had been put upon to provide that insurance. Mr. George explained that there was a pool that all companies that write auto insurance had to participate in, and even if the courts failed to revoke someone's license, if an individual has a drivers license they would be entitled to buy insurance. MR. GEORGE expressed that there would be people who could not afford insurance, and if caught, they would be without the means to transport themselves to work, day care, et cetera. He stated that that was a social problem and did not know how that could be addressed. Mr. George agreed that those people should have insurance, noting that when they registered their vehicle they swore under penalty of perjury that they had insurance and would maintain it. He noted that there were not a lot of people getting prosecuted for perjury who could be put in jail, but the state did not because it does not make sense and was not cost effective. MR. GEORGE advised members that the issue of confidentiality of insurance records was very important to insurance companies. He noted that insurance companies have information on policy expiration dates and if a competing insurance company acquired, in some manner, a list of those names and expiration dates, the competing company could solicit those people to hopefully write some of those policies. Mr. George agreed that the bill provided for confidentiality, as did the state of Utah; however, he could certify to committee members that USAA received a letter in their mail one day that was a complete data base of a competitor sent in error. Confidentiality sounded good in theory, but in practice it had not worked in Utah. Number 2052 MR. GEORGE pointed out that there were people who like to break into computers, for one reason or another, and insurance companies had spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to keep their records secure. He stressed the fact that the insurance company would not have a handle on the third party contractor. MR. GEORGE stated with respect to the $2 charge per vehicle registration, and the $6 cost the insurance companies would realize because of the need to report the information, was what he termed a tax. Mr. George advised members if they were going to pass HB 95 it should include a strong enforcement and penalty provision in order to get rid of the uninsured motorist. MR. GEORGE advised members that the NAII was in support of the idea that if people were going to sign their vehicle registration under penalty of perjury that they had insurance that they better have insurance. He noted that the NAII did not believe HB 95 was a way of accomplishing that. Mr. George reiterated that the 13 percent figure was just not all that bad, but actually a fairly low percentage. MR. GEORGE pointed out that in some rural areas there were a lot of people that did not even register their vehicles, did not have drivers licenses or license plates, yet drive with impunity. He felt if the greater population was going to be enforced, it should include everyone in the state. Number 2160 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if what Mr. George was saying was that it would be better not to charge people a small amount in an attempt to reduce the number of uninsured motorists, and allow the uninsured motorist to go. MR. GEORGE noted that when purchasing uninsured motorist coverage, you would be essentially buying liability coverage for the other person, and if the uninsured motorist was liable for damages, it was his understanding the individual's uninsured motorist insurance would pay for the damages caused by an individual who did not have liability insurance. MR. GEORGE pointed out that if the reason 13 percent did not carry insurance was because of the cost, tacking on an additional cost would not resolve that problem. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the additional costs, through fees of $2 and $6 would amount to approximately the same as registering three cars, or equivalent, possibly, to one tank of gas. MR. GEORGE advised members if an individual was not presently able to afford insurance, the additional costs would not make it more affordable. He noted, however, that those people might be able to afford insurance if they gave something else up, and maybe that was what they were being asked to do. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that when he was young and just out of school working in the oil patch, he asked the head of the insurance department in that company how much insurance he should carry, and the response he got was, "You need the most insurance when you can least afford it." Chairman Green was suggesting the same sort of thing. He pointed out that it was a privilege to drive and people should have to cover their own responsibilities. MR. GEORGE expressed that the other side of that would be to do something drastic like no-fault insurance where a person buys insurance to cover themselves only, and if a person did not buy it, they could not collect. He noted that that was an idea that had been considered in Alaska a number of years ago, unsuccessfully; however, with that type of insurance a person would not care if others had insurance because they were insuring themselves. Number 2392 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the cost figures whereby the state of Alaska could impose a fee of $2 that would allow for contracting with an outside agency, create a data base, update that data base, with the police department having access to that data base readily, and the insurance company claims it would cost them $6 per policy because of reporting requirements. MR. GEORGE stated that the $6 number was given him by USAA as their average cost for reporting requirements. He expressed that the insurance companies had the data captured; however, it was a matter of sorting out what data they would report, which would be to make sure they have the right name, the right policy number, the VIN number, the expiration date. It would be extremely important to report accurate information; people have multiple cars, vehicles are bought and sold, et cetera. CHAIRMAN GREEN felt Mr. George may want to verify the $6 cost to insurance companies because it did appear somewhat disproportionate. TAPE 97-45, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated if someone was driving without insurance they would actually be driving without a valid license, and would also be guilty of unsworn falsification, at the very least, which were two misdemeanors. He was curious as to how Mr. George arrived at the conclusion that there was no teeth in the law. MR. GEORGE responded that the fact that there were numerous people driving with a suspended license, not being prosecuted for perjury, and essentially doing it with some immunity, that the problem was not being solved. He felt if there was significant enforcement, that would be the deterrent and people would stop driving with suspended licenses; however, that did not seem to be the case. Mr. George noted that 13 percent of the driving population swear that they have insurance and would maintain it, but they do not. Mr. George stated that if there was teeth in the law there was a means to get to that 13 percent, but the state had not. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that, "it was not that the dog did not have teeth, it's just that we've got it on too tight of a leash." He felt sure that Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General, would state that if there were adequate resources, the Department of Law would go after those offenders, and Representative Porter would state that the police departments, if they had adequate resources, would also pursue individuals operating a motor vehicle illegally. Representative Berkowitz pointed out that it was not a question of "lack of teeth" in the law, but a lack of enforcement because of the lack of funds. MR. GEORGE felt that was an outstanding point; however, expressed that he did not see a lot of money being funded under HB 95 for enforcement purposes. He asked what was being done that was different in enforcement with HB 95, than what was being done without it. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that he had intended on moving on to HB 131 relating to the advisory vote on the death penalty at 2:00; however, because they got a late start, he would extend that until 2:15. He would take several more questions before moving on to that bill. Number 129 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. George if the firms he represented would consider that the state of Alaska required mandatory auto liability insurance. MR. GEORGE advised members that the law was clear on the issue of mandatory auto insurance, and the insurance companies he represented were clearly mandated to participate in the assigned risk plan to make insurance available to anyone that seeks insurance, so yes, they would say it was mandatory. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it was not true that financial institutions who provide financing for automobiles require the borrower to have insurance and the insurance companies report to the financing institution. MR. GEORGE agreed that there were vehicles that were financed and insurance is required by the financial institution, but generally insurance companies, through the agent, provide a certificate of insurance verifying insurance coverage. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the lender was named as the additional insured and asked if it would not be necessary to inform them if a policy had been cancelled. MR. GEORGE advised members that it was generally a requirement in the insurance certificate that says they would notify, or attempt to notify the lender. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt that HB 95 was just taking that process one step further, and believed the system should be in place because of the relationship with financial institutions. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that he was having a difficult time convincing himself that the state had a mandatory insurance requirement. He referred to AS 28.22.011, which stated, "The operator of a motor vehicle subject to registration must have 'this kind of insurance' unless"... and pointed out that the biggest "unless" in the world was the operator had not been cited within the preceding five years for traffic violations. Representative Porter advised members that if someone had not had a ticket within the last five years, they would not be required to have insurance, was how he read the law. MR. GEORGE pointed out that there were two laws that applied; one was a financial responsibility law, which he thought was what Representative Porter may have referred to. He stated that there was also a mandatory auto insurance provision that required each vehicle to be insured. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed that it would be interesting for the committee to know what states had what form of insurance requirements. He asked if Mr. George would have that information available. MR. GEORGE responded that between himself and the Division of Motor Vehicles, they could provide that information. Number 334 MICHAEL LESSMEIER, representing State Farm Insurance, pointed out that Alaska had a mandatory insurance requirement of $50,000 per person, $100,000 per instant and $25,000, and felt Ms. Hensley might have referred to the old law, which was a complicated area and easy to do. MR. LESSMEIER advised members that he had submitted a copy of testimony he had provided in 1983 and encouraged members to read it because the problem being discussed was not a new problem. He stated that the very policy issues the insurance industry was concerned about in 1983 when deciding what form of mandatory insurance to adopt, were raised again by HB 95. MR. LESSMEIER explained that in 1983 and 1984 the state adopted a form of mandatory insurance that at that time had two points of proof. He noted that it was debated in many committees, the issue of what would be required of insurers every time there was a cancellation to notify the state. Mr. Lessmeier recalled that one of the companies he represented sent out approximately 2000 cancellation notices every month; however, only canceled a few policies. Rather than get involved in a huge paper war, what the legislature chose to do in 1984 was to adopt a more simplified form of mandatory insurance that required proof of insurance at two points. MR. LESSMEIER expressed that the two points were random, of which one required certification of insurance when registering a motor vehicle. He pointed out that the reason the legislature did that was because it was an inexpensive way of doing it, and no one could really tell when they would be cited, nor could anyone tell when they might be involved in an automobile accident, which was the other point of proof. That was adopted in 1984 and that scheme had worked relatively well over the years except that it had been changed. MR. LESSMEIER pointed out that one of the points of proof had been removed, and also one of the enforcement mechanisms that had been in existence since statehood had been taken away, which was the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. That Act stated that if an individual's vehicle was hit by someone and that person was not financially responsible, the individual who was hit could go to the Division of Motor Vehicles and the person's license would either be suspended or would not be given back until adequate arrangements were made to pay the individual whose vehicle was damaged. That was one of the reasons he felt everyone was frustrated in terms of what was happening. MR. LESSMEIER pointed out that the question members would have to decide was if the benefit they hoped to achieve, was worth the cost. He expressed that there was also a third part to the previous program that mandated offers of uninsured and under- insured motorist coverage, which was the recognition of the fact that no matter what the state did, or how much money would be spent on enforcement, there would always be a certain percentage of people who could not afford that insurance, they would not purchase it, and the state could spend a significant amount of dollars, and would still not affect that portion of the uninsured population. MR. LESSMEIER also expressed that the same idea outlined in HB 95 had come up in approximately 15 other states, and it was his belief that only one state had adopted it. MR. LESSMEIER felt if members wished to accomplish what was provided in HB 95, it would be necessary to establish a mechanism to determine if the program was working. He noted that was one of the reasons why State Farm suggested, in a letter to Representative Green, that an independent audit provision be included in the proposed legislation. MR. LESSMEIER stated that it would also be necessary to consider the enforcement aspect of the proposed legislation. He advised members if the program were to pass without enforcement, it would not do any good. Mr. Lessmeier advised members that right now the state could require public safety officials to check for proof of insurance when they pull someone over for a moving violation. MR. LESSMEIER advised members that he felt the proposed legislation was an attempt to solve what was a difficult problem; however, felt that philosophically it was the wrong approach, and thought the legislature ought to consider the available tools that currently existed. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that time was running out and one other person had signed up to testify and asked that Mr. Lessmeier come back and present comments when the bill is once again before the committee. Number 651 JOSEPH YOUNG, retired and speaking on his own behalf, testified in favor of HB 95. He stated that of the nine people who had crashed into his car, or his wife's car, six were not insured. He felt that current law did not work because there was no real consequence. Mr. Young did not agree with the idea that just because people would violate the law that it should be given up. MR. YOUNG advised members that he got his first car at age 17 and working a job that paid $200 per month. He stated that he had insurance for that car and had carried insurance on every car that he had driven since because he felt it was one's responsibility to do so. MR. YOUNG advised members that the last accident where someone crashed into him he did not report because the individual did not have insurance, and given the number of incidents he had reported in the prior two years, if he reported that one, he would have had to pay the deductible and his insurance rates would have increased. MR. YOUNG stated that with the last incident he reported to the police, the driver of the other vehicle lied to the officer by stating that he had insurance, when in fact, he did not. He advised members he was in favor of HB 95 and felt the 13 percent figure was too high. CHAIRMAN GREEN closed testimony on HB 95 until brought before the committee at a later date.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|