Provides for liability for damages caused by an excluded driver (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
The enactment of HB 9 modifies the existing laws regarding motor vehicle liability insurance, particularly addressing the responsibilities of the named insured when the excluded driver operates the vehicle. While the named insured remains liable for damages caused by an excluded driver, their liability is limited to the minimum mandatory insurance requirements unless other specific relationships or circumstances apply. This aims to protect insurers from having to cover claims associated with excluded drivers, thus creating a more transparent understanding of liability and potentially reducing disputes over claims.
House Bill 9, enacted by the Louisiana Legislature, establishes liability provisions for incidents involving operators of motor vehicles who are excluded from coverage under the owner’s liability insurance policy. The bill asserts that a named insured individual and an excluded operator can be held jointly liable for damages caused by the excluded driver when operating the vehicle with the owner's express permission. This legislation was designed to clarify accountability in cases where excluded drivers cause accidents, effectively linking the owner's insurance policy to the actions of a driver for whom coverage has been waived.
The overall sentiment surrounding HB 9 appears to be generally supportive, especially among insurance companies and advocates for clearer liability laws. Proponents argue that the bill enhances clarity concerning responsibilities for both vehicle owners and insurers, thus fostering a more efficient claims process. However, there may be concerns from individuals who fear unfair financial burdens if they allow excluded drivers to operate their vehicles, potentially leading to instances of limiting access to vehicles for certain individuals.
Notable points of contention may revolve around the fairness of holding vehicle owners liable for actions of excluded drivers, especially if they have permitted the driver to use their vehicle. Critics argue that the legislation may lead to unintended financial repercussions for vehicle owners who, despite their best intentions, could find themselves in legal or financial troubles due to an excluded driver’s misconduct. Furthermore, questions may arise regarding how effectively the bill could protect the interests of insurers while balancing the rights of vehicle owners and excluded drivers.