1958] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES 13

(b) The license has been suspended for failure of an uninsured
motorist to indemnify against or satisfy a claim arising from his operation
of a motor vehicle.

The 1954 law represented a sound step forward in protection of the
general public against drivers of demonstrated irresponsibility. House
Bill 62 of the 1958 session would free such drivers, after a five-year period,
from any obligation to carry liability insurance in order to operate a motor
vehicle. Its sponsors contend that excessive charges for this form of com-
pulsory insurance constitute an unreasonable hardship and burden on
many motorists.

My investigation discloses that an automobile driver whose license is
suspended for non-payment of a claim, but whose driving record is other-
wise similar to that of the average motor vehicle operator can obtain the
necessary insurance coverage from reputable companies for a surcharge
ranging from five to ten per cent. A different situation is presented as to
motorists whose licenses have been mandatorily revoked or suspended for
serious criminal violations. This group of drivers, in general, is obviously
a very poor insurance risk. A fire insurance company would probaJbly
deny coverage to a convicted arsonist, and one should expect a similar
attitude by automobile insurance companies toward drunken or hit-and-run
drivers. Only a relatively few companies will issue liability insurance for
such risks. Their premium charges, of necessity, are excessively high as
compared to the premium charges for normal drivers.

In my opinion, House Bill 62 is not a proper solution for any problems
of hardship or unfairness which may occasionally arise under the present
law. The instant measure does not solve such situations, but merely
reduces the alleged hardship period. The heavy premium charges to seri-
ous traffic offenders is based solely upon their own past driving actions.
Elimination of the requirement for filing a certificate of insurance after
five years will not assure such drivers of a premium reduction. It will
merely mean that serious violators of the law are free to operate without
insurance, which is probably what they would do. As has been noted, the
uninsured motorist involved under the Financial Responsibility Laws
enjoys more favorable treatment.

Before considering any reduction in the period for maintenance of
insurance coverage, it would seem infinitely preferable that a thorough-
going study be made of the ra^es charged various types of drivers who
must furnish insurance. Consideration can be given to expanding and
publicizing the existing Assigned Risk Plan. If any abuses are discovered
which the Insurance Department is not fully empowered to regulate, such
authority can be supplied.

The entire matter is a fit subject for study by the Legislative Council,
which can fully investigate the entire factual background and determine
whether a more desirable solution lies in stringent regulatory insurance
controls and publicity concerning same. In my opinoin, this is the only
proper approach to any problem which may exist in this situation. I am
therefore returning House Bill 62 without my approval.

Respectfully yours,

THEODORE R. MCKELDIN,

TRMcK/TK Governor.
Which was read and ordered journalized.