1762                                      VETOES

House Bill No. 213—Motor Vehicle Insurance

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 243
(n) (2) of Article 48A of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1964
Replacement Volume and 1966 Supplement), title "Insurance Code,"
subtitle "16. Rates and Rating Organizations," to require insurance
companies writing only automobile physical damage insurance to
provide insurance in the State under the Maryland Automobile
Insurance Plan for equitable apportionment of insurance risks and to
change the description of other companies subject to the Plan; and
correcting an error therein BROADEN THE MARYLAND AUTO-
MOBILE INSURANCE PLAN TO MAKE ADDITIONAL KINDS
OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS
USING THE PLAN.

May 4, 1967.

Honorable Marvin Mandel
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Section 17 of Article II of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have vetoed today House Bill 213 and am returning it to
you.

This bill would extend the provisions of the Maryland Automobile
Insurance Plan to include physical damage (collision and compre-
hensive) and medical payments insurance coverages.

The Plan, which now provides for the extension of liability
insurance coverages to persons who, for reasons that substantially
increase the degree of exposure to claims, cannot arrange for such
coverages through normal insurance channels, is an essential com-
panion to the legal requirement that owners and drivers be financially
responsible to third parties for injuries or damages caused by such
owners or drivers.

Thus, the substance of the bill is unrelated to the basic reason
for the existence of the Plan. Nevertheless, I would not veto the bill
solely for this reason, nor am I necessarily opposed to the concept of
the bill.

My concern is that the bill involves a radical departure from a
solidly established policy—a departure that no other state has made—
which should not be undertaken without thorough consideration of
its ultimate effect and ramifications by an agency such as the Legis-
lative Council. This is particularly important when there is no
experience of other states on which to base a judgment.

Such consideration should involve consultation with agencies
and groups involved in the Automobile Insurance Plan, particularly
those responsible for administering the Plan. I would hope, addi-
tionally, that in any bill developed sufficient lead time would be pro-
vided to allow the complete formulation of procedures for its admini-
stration. There is some question about whether the administrators