Insurance: no-fault; penalties for lapse of insurance policy; provide waiver for certain individuals. Amends secs. 2118 & 2120 of 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.2118 & 500.2120) & adds sec. 2116c.
If enacted, SB 0282 will significantly impact the automobile insurance landscape for individuals who have been incarcerated, particularly those reentering society. It eliminates barriers that could disproportionately affect this group of people, thereby encouraging access to necessary insurance coverage. This change could lead to higher rates of insured drivers among recently released prisoners, enhancing public safety and potentially reducing the uninsured driver rate in Michigan.
Senate Bill 0282 seeks to amend the Michigan Insurance Code to provide specific protections for individuals who have recently been released from prison. The bill prohibits automobile insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums solely based on an individual’s failure to maintain insurance during the six months prior to their application, provided that the individual certifies their eligibility and explains the circumstances of their lapse. This amendment aims to assist individuals in reintegrating into society by easing the process of obtaining automobile insurance after incarceration.
The sentiment around SB 0282 appears to be generally supportive among legislators who advocate for social justice and criminal reform. Proponents view this bill as a necessary measure to reduce the disadvantages faced by ex-prisoners and to promote their successful reintegration into society. However, there may be concerns from insurance industry stakeholders regarding the implications of mandating coverage for individuals with a history of insurance lapses, which could introduce risks into the insurance market.
While SB 0282 is primarily focused on supporting ex-prisoners, some opponents may argue about the potential financial impact on insurance companies and the risk associated with insuring drivers who have recently lapsed in their insurance coverage. The conversation around the bill could involve debates on personal responsibility versus societal reintegration, highlighting different perspectives on how best to balance these complex issues.