History

     Georgia law requires all motor vehicle operators to maintain collision insurance.[1] Law enforcement officials, as well as the general public, have become increasingly concerned about uninsured drivers misrepresenting themselves to police officers as having insurance.[2] While many insurers indicate this fraudulent practice is limited, widespread fear exists that as many as 40% of Georgia drivers either drive completely without insurance or purchase a policy merely to acquire the requisite insurance card to demonstrate proof of insurance.[3] Once these drivers receive a card, the drivers abandon their policy premiums and lapse on the policy but retain the insurance card to fraudulently demonstrate proof of insurance to police officers.[4] To combat the problem, the Georgia General Assembly introduced the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety (“DMVS”) database.[5] The database contains a cross-listing of insurance policies with vehicle identification numbers (“VINs”), thus allowing police officers to check for and receive immediate and accurate information about which vehicles are currently insured.[6] However, transcription errors and the lack of VINs in commercial and “fleet” insurance policies plagued the database.[7] Representative Jimmy Lord of the 103rd district introduced HB 191 to address those problems.[8]

HB 191

     Representative Lord, the Chairman of the House Committee on Insurance, introduced HB 191 to the House on January 29, 2003.[9] The Speaker assigned the bill to the Insurance Committee, which favorably reported a substitute on February 11, 2003.[10] As the measures within the bill were relatively uncontroversial, the only changes offered in the House Committee were minor adjustments to the bill’s effective dates and minor language clarifications.[11] The House passed the bill with a floor substitute on April 7, 2003, by a vote of 167 to 0.[12]

     Senator John Bulloch of the 11th district introduced HB 191 in the Senate on April 8, 2003.[13] The bill was assigned to the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.[14] Just like the House Committee, the Senate Committee amended an effective date and then favorably reported the bill on April 11, 2003.[15]

     Because the bill received widespread bipartisan support, one Senator attempted to use HB 191 as a vehicle to pass provisions from a more controversial bill.[16] A significant percentage of Georgia’s Hispanic population resides in the United States illegally.[17] Because illegal aliens are not licensed, no identification records are available on them.[18] Additionally, because licenses are required in order to obtain insurance policies, none of those illegal immigrants operating vehicles on Georgia roads are insured.[19] Senator Sam Zamarripa of the 36th district offered an amendment to allow aliens to take the Georgia driving exam without a social security number, making licensing of legal and illegal immigrants possible.[20]

     The Senator believed that providing non-citizens with the opportunity to obtain a driver’s license would benefit Georgia in three ways.[21] First, from an economic standpoint, the legislation would signal to Hispanic nations in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (“FTAA”) that Georgia is a Hispanic-friendly state.[22] This signal is important because Atlanta hopes to become the host city for the FTAA.[23] Second, the legislation would serve as a public safety device because it would allow immigrants to obtain a drivers license, thus removing the main obstacle preventing immigrants from qualifying for car insurance.[24] Finally, Senator Zamarripa believed that everyone in Georgia has the civil right to obtain a driver’s license.[25] The Senator noted that several of Georgia’s economic industries depend on immigrant labor and they would face severe recession, if not complete collapse, without immigrant labor.[26] Responding to concerns that the measure would encourage illegal immigration, Senator Zamarripa noted, “we do have an immigration problem . . . [t]he U.S. Congress should do something about the problem” as immigration is outside of the Georgia Senate’s pervue.[27] Senator Zamarripa believed that this was “the most important civil rights issue facing the Hispanic community” at the time the Senate considered this bill.[28] The Senator went into the argument “prepared to lose” because of the issue’s controversial nature but was glad to have raised the issue and advanced the debate.[29]

     On April 14, 2003, Senator Zamarripa offered his first amendment to the bill, which the Senate passed by a vote of 32 to 21.[30] The Senate passed other minor floor amendments, and HB 191, as amended, passed the Senate on April 14, 2003, by a vote of 37 to 18.[31] However, Senator Zamarripa believed the bill would ultimately fail in the House because of his controversial amendment, so he subsequently withdrew it.[32] The Senate reconsidered HB 191 and passed the bill again on April 17, 2003, without Senator Zamarripa’s controversial amendment.[33] The House formally approved HB 191 on April 22, 2003, by a vote of 144 to 0.[34]

The Act

     Section 1 of the Act allows drivers to cancel vehicle registration when a vehicle will be inoperable for an extended period of time.[35] This provision addresses the problem of requiring military servicemen to maintain insurance even when they are on active duty overseas and unable to use their vehicles.[36] Section 2 of the Act requires those persons renewing vehicle registration to provide tag agents with “satisfactory or sufficient proof of insurance” as defined in this section.[37] The Act provides that, beginning January 1, 2004, the DMVS computer database will become the recognized means of proving insurance to police officers.[38] Section 3 redefines a “commercial vehicle policy” by striking the language excluding policies issued to natural persons.[39] This provision eliminates different reporting requirements that had been in place for policies issued to companies.[40] Under the new provisions, the vehicle-reporting database will be used for all insurance policies and should therefore provide more accurate information.[41] Section 4 establishes the same reporting requirements for issuing insurance as those established in section 3 for terminating insurance.[42] Importantly, section 5 of the Act provides that insurance cards will remain a satisfactory means of proving insurance for vehicles covered under fleet policies, as well as self-insured commercial vehicles not identified by VINs in their respective policies.[43] The Act further defines insurers’ reporting obligations.[44] Insurers must now report commercial policies to the database, though the Code exempts fleet policies from the reporting requirement.[45]

Jeffrey D. Gordon