News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

No Fault Insurance

Started by sgrizzle, February 27, 2007, 04:02:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

RecycleMichael

I believe that is SB49 by State Senator Patrick Anderson of Enid.
Power is nothing till you use it.

Conan71

Thanks RM.  I read it over, it is stuck in a public safety bill which also amends forfeiture of property by drug runners, cultivators, and manufacturers, it looks like.

It's item 10 on page four for those of you interested:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08SB/SB49_int.rtf
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

AMP

How can the State or municipality have the authority to sell property that is now owned by the person.  

Most motor vehicles are on loan from one financial institution or another.

That law would create an enormous amount of Paper Work and Red Tape.

Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by AMP

How can the State or municipality have the authority to sell property that is now owned by the person.  

Most motor vehicles are on loan from one financial institution or another.

That law would create an enormous amount of Paper Work and Red Tape.



Not really that much more work.  One addtional notice and the OTC already has that info on file.

Lien-holders require property insurance on vehicles.  They are set up as "loss-payee".  If insurance coverage lapses, the lender is notified in writing, they force-place coverage, and add it to the payment.  I believe they force-place comp/collision only- not liability.  If their vehicle gets seized, they have the option of showing up at auction to buy it back, or they are just SOL.  It would require only one more notification that the car is being sold at auction, and that is info the OTC already has on file from the lein.

I'd be willing to bet the majority of cars w/o liability are either paid for in cash or tote-a-note cars.

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Wilbur

I wish I could drive uninsured and with no license too.

You can!

From KOTV-6:  The Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma shares the desire to do something about uninsured motorists. But they say technology needs to be upgraded to provide safeguards for innocent drivers, so their vehicles aren't impounded. Anderson said someone who has liability insurance but simply forgets to carry proof of it in his or her vehicle would likely not have to forfeit the vehicle.

This technology needs to happen first.  There is currently no way for law enforcement to know who has insurance and who doesn't other then a little piece of paper in a car.  And with many insurance companies, such as Geico and Progressive, which are bought over the internet, you simply print your own proof of insurance off the internet.  Nothing stops any one from doing that, whether they have insurance or not.

And the number of times law enforcement runs into people who simply forgot to put their new insurance form in the car is ridiculous.  I'm not interested in towing these cars off, knowing full well they probably have insurance.  How many house wives walk off down the street with their groceries and their little kids in tow because they don't have their current insurance in the car.  There is currently no way to verify insurance.

Some states do this through their Department of Public Safety, which is then made available to law enforcement.

ttownclown

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by AMP

How can the State or municipality have the authority to sell property that is now owned by the person.  

Most motor vehicles are on loan from one financial institution or another.

That law would create an enormous amount of Paper Work and Red Tape.



Not really that much more work.  One addtional notice and the OTC already has that info on file.

Lien-holders require property insurance on vehicles.  They are set up as "loss-payee".  If insurance coverage lapses, the lender is notified in writing, they force-place coverage, and add it to the payment.  I believe they force-place comp/collision only- not liability.  If their vehicle gets seized, they have the option of showing up at auction to buy it back, or they are just SOL.  It would require only one more notification that the car is being sold at auction, and that is info the OTC already has on file from the lein.

I'd be willing to bet the majority of cars w/o liability are either paid for in cash or tote-a-note cars.




First, don't bet on it.  2nd - most banks don't force place insurance, and as you mentioned if they do, it doesn't include liability.

3rd, the red tape & cost is already enormous to get a vehicle out of impound. Believe it or not, it could take days before the impound notice finally reaches the lien holder. $30/day storage adds up very quickly. Then there is the money that the bank has to pay to their repo company to go get the vehicle.  Not to mention the lender has to wait on a repo title from the state before they can begin to secure their vehicle (this adds more time to the process and thus more money to wrecker company).  

You also mention that the bank can show up at the auction and buy the vehicle back?? That makes absolutely no sense.  Let's say someone owes $8K on their car, and then the state takes it from them.  I seriously doubt a bank will sink another $8k in the deal just to turn around and sell it at another auction for probably less than they had to pay the state to get it out of hock?  

If this passes, get ready for higher automobile interest rates to compensate for additional risk associated with a car loan.

I agree people must have insurance on their vehicles.  But I don't think this is going to change anything.  I firmly believe that most people want to have insurance.  But unfortunately, whether you want to admit or not, we live in a poor state.  Taking someone's vehicle would just to make a bad situation worse for them and their family and would only benefit the local police (by increasing revenues from auction proceeds) and wrecker companies.   I understand that if someone is out and about with no insurance and have a major wreck – that too can make a bad situation worse as well.  That's why I believe a better alternative is No Fault Insurance (as this thread originally started as).


Wilbur

How can the State or municipality have the authority to sell property that is now owned by the person.

Law enforcement has these authority to take anything that can be determined to be proceeds from drugs.  This includes homes, automobiles, ....  Taking a car for insurance, I assume, would be similar.

But, law enforcement must demonstrate to the court the car/home.... has no liens.  Otherwise, if liens are present, law enforcement has the option to pay off the lien in order to keep the property.

And many have mentioned most of the cars without insurance are paid for.  That maybe, but look what condition they're in.  Who would want them?  And it would probably cost more in manpower then what little money you would get out of it compared to all the time it took to confiscate and try to sell.

cannon_fodder

and as I stated.... if it is on loan from a financial institution they are required to keep insurance on it anyway.  

If it is on loan from a bank then give it back to the bank.  If its the brothers, charge the brother for impound and give it back (dont loan your car to people without insurance ffs).

Everyone has SOMETHING to take, even if its just making your brother mad at you.
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by ttownclown

First, don't bet on it.  2nd - most banks don't force place insurance, and as you mentioned if they do, it doesn't include liability.

3rd, the red tape & cost is already enormous to get a vehicle out of impound. Believe it or not, it could take days before the impound notice finally reaches the lien holder. $30/day storage adds up very quickly. Then there is the money that the bank has to pay to their repo company to go get the vehicle.  Not to mention the lender has to wait on a repo title from the state before they can begin to secure their vehicle (this adds more time to the process and thus more money to wrecker company).  

You also mention that the bank can show up at the auction and buy the vehicle back?? That makes absolutely no sense.  Let's say someone owes $8K on their car, and then the state takes it from them.  I seriously doubt a bank will sink another $8k in the deal just to turn around and sell it at another auction for probably less than they had to pay the state to get it out of hock?  

If this passes, get ready for higher automobile interest rates to compensate for additional risk associated with a car loan.

I agree people must have insurance on their vehicles.  But I don't think this is going to change anything.  I firmly believe that most people want to have insurance.  But unfortunately, whether you want to admit or not, we live in a poor state.  Taking someone's vehicle would just to make a bad situation worse for them and their family and would only benefit the local police (by increasing revenues from auction proceeds) and wrecker companies.   I understand that if someone is out and about with no insurance and have a major wreck – that too can make a bad situation worse as well.  That's why I believe a better alternative is No Fault Insurance (as this thread originally started as).





There's a difference in being poor and making poor choices on legal priorities.  Granted, I don't live paycheck to paycheck these days but I have in the past and I had times where it was a struggle to keep my auto insurance premiums paid up, but I did because I was required to by a lender and/or the state.  It was my legal responsibility.

As far as banks buying back a vehicle with a lein at auction- it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to have to buy back a car with an $8000 balance for $8000.  They will have to buy it for whatever high bid is, That may just cover whatever the storage was.  If it's more than what they can reasonibly re-sell for minimal loss- they walk away.  If they do get it, they will turn around and re-sell it.  Either that or the state should turn the car over to the lein holder.  

Banks almost always lose on any repo action as it is now.   They go after the borrower for the deficiency balance.  If they can't collect it, they report it as a loss and 1099 the borrower and the borrower gets taxed on it as income.  I don't think you would see that much of a change if any in interest rates because borrowers with first tier credit are far more likely to have the character and ability to pay their auto insurance premiums when due.  The lenders who probably have the worst track record for drivers with lapses in insurance are tote-a-note lots.  Those customers pay through the nose to get a car because either they don't have a proven credit track record or they've already blown it with credit.  It's not going to affect the interest rate of most people who buy new cars or late model used.

The law may also necessitate a change to where the banks can force place property and liability insurance on the vehicle so they can keep from being stuck with a car in impound.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan