DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE - STRICT LIABILITY AND SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES 39:6B-2 |
|
Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with driving without insurance and other serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. The mandatory penalties imposed for driving without insurance is 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 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), the courts established 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 Appellate Division, in the State v. Hochman, 188 NJ Super 382 (App. Div. 1982) 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, 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 defendant's wife. Although Allstate claimed it mailed a cancellation notice, it stipulated that it had mailed the cancellation notice to an incorrect address, mailing it to 313 Park Street rather than 314 Park Street. The broker, First City, never informed defendant's wife, despite her inquiry, that Allstate had canceled the insurance policy or that the finance agency had liquidated, or that she could reinstate the policy by paying the balance due on the annual premium. The Appellate Division noted that in order to convict a defendant-owner of operating a motor vehicle in violation of the insurance provisions, the State did not have to show a culpable mental state, i.e., that defendant knew his vehicle was uninsured. The State simply had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) defendant owned the vehicle, (2) the vehicle was registered in New Jersey, (3) defendant operated the vehicle or caused it to be operated upon any public road or highway in this State, and (4) the vehicle was without liability insurance coverage required by N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1. Id at 387. The Appellate Division held that the first three elements of the offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The pivotal issue was whether the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt the fourth element of the defense, that the vehicle was uninsured. The question was thus whether the liability insurance policy had been lawfully and effectively canceled when Defendant Hochman was charged for the offense. The Court found that Allstate had not properly canceled the insurance policy. The Court held; "A notice of cancellation of a policy of automobile liability insurance is effective in this State only if it is based on one or more statutorily enumerated reasons, including the nonpayment of premiums. N.J.S.A. 17:29C-7(A)(a). Moreover, prior to March 10, 1981, where, as here, the cancellation was for nonpayment of premiums, the notice of cancellation must have been mailed or delivered by the insurance carrier (here Allstate) to the insured (here either defendant or his wife) at least ten days prior to the effective date of cancellation and must have been accompanied by a statement of the reason given for such cancellation. N.J.S.A. 17:29C-8. Proof of mailing of the notice of cancellation to the named insured at the address shown in the policy was deemed sufficient proof of notice. N.J.S.A. 17:29C-10. Under this latter statue, cancellation was effective whether or not the insured actually received notice of cancellation because proof of mailing, not proof of receipt, was the determinative factor. See Weathers v. Hartford Ins. Group, 77 N.J. 228, 234 (1978. Proof of mailing the notice, however, is not conclusive on the issue. The insured may still offer proof that he never received the notice "for the purpose of refuting the hypothesis of mailing." Id. at 235. Thus, in Weathers, the Supreme Court held: 'Although the inference of non-mailing provided by evidence of non-receipt might in most cases be outweighed by the inferences of mailing which may be drawn from a certificate of mailing whose reliability has been established, we discern no cogent reason for depriving the trier of fact of such evidence by holding it inadmissible , they are not conclusive of that issue and do not preclude the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in the face of a claim of non-receipt so as to entitle the insurer to judgment as a matter of law. See Sudduth v. Commonwealth County Mutual Ins. Co., 454 S. W. 2d 196 (Tex. Sup. Ct. 1970); 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) Sec. 2519; cf. Fitzpatrick v. Merchants and Manufacturers Fire Ins. Co., 122 N.J.L. 468 (E. &A. 1939). The contrary holding of Womack v. Fenton, 28 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 1953), on this point is hereby overruled. Permitting the fact finder to consider the addressee-insured's denial of receipt of the notice of cancellation does not improperly add to the insurer's statutory burden of proving mailing by requiring it to prove actual receipt of the notice since such testimony is admissible only as the basis for an inference of its non-mailing. The insurer still need only prove constructive notice by adequately establishing that the notice of cancellation was mailed. Hochman at 388-389 Weathers at 235-236 The court noted that although Allstate claimed that a notice of cancellation was sent to the defendant's wife, this did not establish that the notice satisfied the statutory requirement of N.J.S.A. 17:29C-8. There is no proof that the notice mailed to the named insured (assuming that defendant's wife was the insured named in the policy) or that it was mailed to the address shown in the policy, or that its contents complied with statutory requirements. The court held "thus, we are constrained to hold that the State failed to sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Allstate automobile liability insurance policy covering defendant's vehicle was lawfully canceled. The Allstate policy therefore was presumptively in full force and effect... and defendant's conviction for violating the compulsory insurance provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 cannot stand. Hochman at 389-390. The insurance statutes under Title 19 of the New Jersey laws contain provisions which sometimes provide that all members of a household are covered under a policy issued to one member even if their name is not set forth on the policy. The uninsured defendant who lives with someone who owns an insured car may be included under that person's policy. Operation is different in non-insurance matters than in drunk driving cases. A defendant who is seated in the driver's seat, behind the steering wheel of a vehicle that is under tow and was in physical control of the vehicle did not "operate" the vehicle for the purposes of prohibiting operating the vehicle while suspended, operating uninsured vehicle and operating unregistered vehicle, where the vehicle did not have an engine and incapable of being operated under its own power. Counsel can argue the state must prove the defendant drove the vehicle. State v. Derby, 256 N.J. Super. 702, (Law Div. 1992). In a case involving Personal Injury Protection/ No Fault PIP benefits the Appellate Division recently ruled that an insurance company did not properly mail a notice of cancellation, thus the policy was not canceled. In Hodges v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Company, _____ NJ Super. _____ (App. Div. 1992), plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident operating a vehicle owned by her mother. Plaintiff filed a PIP suit against the insurance company which had refused to pay medical bills and property damage. Defendant's insurance company claimed it canceled Alva Hodge's policy on December 16, 1988 for failure to remit the premium payment. Defendant submitted two pages of a November 28, 1988 "JUA Mailing List," which indicated Alva Hodges as an insured who was scheduled to be sent a notice of cancellation. The mailing list contained two November 28 stamps of the Harrisburg Post Office and two stamps of postage for the numerous letters of $39.00 and $99.75. The two postage stamps together totaled $138.75. The list claimed a "total mailing" of 640 notices. Plaintiff pointed out that a mailing of 640 notices at $.25 per piece (the 1988 postage stamp price) should have totaled $160.00. Because defendant paid only $138.75, plaintiff contends that all the lists and notices may not have been mailed. The mailing list also contained a signature and certification of one of the defendant's employees. more info at http://www.njlaws.com/driving_with_no_insurance.htm |
Friday, February 4, 2011
DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE - STRICT LIABILITY AND SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES 39:6B-2
