|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor H.B. 1162
defendant insurer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that either the vehicle
or the driver had insurance coverage.
I am unconvinced there is a problem with proving uninsured motorist status. The
burden shifting provided for in House Bill 1162 could create confusion where none
now exists. At both committee hearings representatives of the Maryland Trial
Lawyers testified in favor of the bill and a representative from the Maryland
Automobile Insurance Fund testified (MAIF) in opposition. In the Senate a
representative from Nationwide Insurance supported the bill with amendments.
Remarkably, the rest of the insurance industry did not take a position on this bill. As
MAIF states in its veto request: "The proponents of HB 1162, before both the House
and the Senate, did not describe one single incident or anecdote of injustice under the
current system."
House Bill 1162 contains the following flaws. First, it does not require sworn
testimony of the alleged uninsured motorist, the person who is in the best position to
know whether there was any insurance coverage. Second, the fact that a vehicle may
not be insured does not mean that the driver does not have insurance. This bill
ignores this fact. Third, records of the MVA and insurance carriers may be in error
and are not an adequate substitute for the sworn testimony of the driver. Fourth,
MVA records often do not reflect a driver's recent changes in an insurance carrier.
Fifth, the bill allows a police report to be admissible evidence on the issue of
insurance coverage. This is very unreliable evidence on this subject.
House Bill 1162 may result in some indeterminate increase in payments by MAIF.
This would result in increased rates for the insureds of MAIF, whose drivers now are
paying very high rates. I am sympathetic, however, if there are problems with proving
lack of insurance for purposes of claiming uninsured motorist coverage. I would hope
that the parties would work together for an agreeable solution.
For the above stated reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 1162.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor
House Bill No. 1162
AN ACT concerning
Civil Actions - Burden of Proof - Uninsured Motorist Coverage
FOR the purpose of establishing that a person asserting the uninsured status of a
motor vehicle in a certain action has the burden of proof; providing that the
burden of proof shall be deemed satisfied when the person introduces certain
records or documents; requiring the finder of fact to find a motor vehicle to be
uninsured if the person asserting the uninsured status of the motor vehicle
satisfies the burden of proof, unless an adverse party establishes certain
coverage by a preponderance of the evidence; providing for the application of
this Act; and generally relating to uninsured motor vehicles.
- 4363 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
