Form 174: Dangers of Driving Without Insurance

• Library: Criminal Law Forms (ABA) (2013 Ed.)

Form 174: Dangers of Driving without Insurance

DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE- STRICT LIABILITY AND SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES

By Kenneth A. Vercammen

The mandatory penalties imposed for driving without Insurance are greater than the first offender penalties for drunk driving or possession of marijuana. Mandatory penalties include automatic loss of license for one year, $300.00-$1000.00 fine and a period of community service to be determined by the Municipal Court. N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 The no car insurance statute is one of the few strict liability statutes. "Every owner or registered owner of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state shall maintain motor vehicle coverage, under provisions approved by the Commissioner of Insurance." N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1. There are also court costs and insurance surcharges of $250.00 per year for three years. Failure to produce at the time of trial an insurance card or insurance policy covering the date of the offense creates a rebuttable presumption that the person was uninsured when charged with the offense.

In State v. Kopp 171 NJ Super 528 (Law Div. 1980), a Law Division Judge held that knowledge of lack of insurance is not a defense. The legislative intent is clear that knowledge of lack of insurance is not an essential element, which must be proved in order to sustain a conviction of an owner who operates a car without insurance. However, the section, which imposes penalties against an individual who operates a motor vehicle without liability insurance, does not apply to a New Jersey resident who is driving an automobile owned by an out-of-state friend who had been in New Jersey for five weeks. State v. Arslanouk 67 NJ Super 387 (App. Div. 1979)

The most important no Insurance case is State v. Hochman 188 NJ Super 382 (App. Div. 1982). The Appellate division examined and reversed a conviction for operating without liability insurance where the State failed to carry its burden of proving that an automobile liability insurance was lawfully canceled. In this fact specific case, defendant was charged with operating a vehicle he owned without insurance. It was stipulated that because of long hours defendant worked, he had asked his wife to look after household matters, including insurance matters, and gave her several thousand dollars each month to pay for them. Defendant Hochman's wife arranged through an insurance broker to have Allstate insure the vehicle. The insurance broker then arranged to finance the insurance premiums through a "Lee Finance" financial service. The defendant's wife then paid the broker and agreed to pay the balance to the financial service in monthly installments of $48.00. Id at 384.

Thereafter, defendant Hochman's wife made payments to the financial service through October 13, 1979. On October 15, 1979 Allstate informed defendant's wife by mail that there was due and owing a premium of $331.00 and payment should be made immediately. The defendant's wife notified the broker that she had received a letter from Allstate and reminded the broker that the insurance premiums were being financed through the finance agency pursuant to financing agreement arranged by it and therefore she did not have to pay the balance of the account.

The insurance broker informed the Defendant Hochman's wife that it would investigate the problem and contact her. In January 1980, because the defendant's wife had not heard from the insurance broker, she again contacted the insurance broker and informed him that she had received no further correspondence from Allstate. She inquired into the status of the insurance of the vehicle, the broker informed the defendant's wife they were still investigating the problem and would contact her when it had been resolved. It was further stipulated in Court that defendant was never told by his wife of the finance agreement or of the difficulties she had encountered with the insurance. In May 1980, defendant was transferred to another office and needed to use the car to get to work. According to stipulated facts, defendant's wife told the defendant that the vehicle could be driven. Defendant, relying upon what his wife had told him and believing that the vehicle was insured, drove the vehicle until July 15, 1980 when he was charged with violating the compulsory insurance provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2.

The insurance broker in Hochman, as an agent, had issued an insurance identification card indicating the insurance would remain in effect from the period August 28, 1979 to August 28, 1980. In December 1979 defendant and his wife moved from the residence in Montclair and left a forwarding address. Thereafter in preparing for trial defendant learned that in October and November 1979 Lee Finance had liquidated without informing its clients, including...