Louisiana House Bill HB932

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Prohibits a policyholder under a motor vehicle liability policy from permitting any person excluded from coverage to drive the covered vehicle

Impact

The enactment of HB 932 will likely impact existing insurance practices and policies, emphasizing the importance of adhering to coverage regulations. By defining the act of permitting an excluded individual to drive as fraudulent, the bill aims to uphold integrity within insurance agreements and to protect the interests of both insurers and the general public. This change is expected to lead to increased accountability among policyholders, potentially influencing how they manage their insurance contracts and who they allow to drive their vehicles.

Summary

House Bill 932 aims to enhance regulations surrounding motor vehicle liability insurance policies in Louisiana. The bill specifically prohibits policyholders from allowing individuals who are excluded from coverage under their motor vehicle insurance policy to operate the covered vehicle. This prohibition is further classified as a fraudulent act if the policyholder permits the excluded person to drive without the excluded individual having coverage under another applicable insurance policy. The enforcement of this bill seeks to promote more responsible behavior among drivers and to mitigate risks associated with uninsured drivers.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment regarding HB 932 appears to support the intent of reducing fraudulent practices within the auto insurance industry. Proponents argue that the bill will ultimately benefit the insurance system by ensuring that only covered individuals operate insured vehicles, which is seen as a common-sense approach to responsible driving and insurance coverage. However, there may be concerns around the implications for policyholders who may not clearly understand the exclusions or face difficulties in finding appropriate candidates for driving permissions.

Contention

Notable points of contention around HB 932 may arise from discussions about how strictly the definitions within the bill will be enforced and the potential burden placed on policyholders. There may be worries that differentiating who qualifies as an excluded person or determining the applicability of an alternate coverage could complicate matters for insured vehicle operators. This concern emphasizes the need for clear communication from insurers to policyholders about their rights and responsibilities under the new provisions.