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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:19:20 AM Start
10:19:26 AM HB409
10:29:53 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Continued from 4/12/18 --
Moved CSHB 409(STA) Out of Committee
+ Approval of introduction of potential committee TELECONFERENCED
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled 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                                                                    
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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