Opinion ID: 2398709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: mandatory security

Text: The fact that the act mandates compulsory security and directs that uninsured owners of private passenger vehicles with liability to injured parties under the act post security and provides penal sanctions for failure to carry such security is not offensive to the state or federal constitutions. Since it is within the province of the legislature to create alternative remedies, and since we have found these remedies to be reasonable, it is merely an exercise of the police power to direct that all private passenger vehicle owners carry basic security. The no-fault system continues as a reasonable alternative only if it can assure those who seek to benefit from it or who suffer loss as a result of it (nonexempted plaintiffs) that the system applies uniformly. If substantial numbers of persons are left remediless, such as nonexempted plaintiffs injured while passengers in automobiles owned by persons who fail to carry the basic security, or if the act fails to compensate nonexempt plaintiffs for their full economic loss, it may fail to sustain itself as a reasonable alternative. See Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla.); Gaines v. Mohawk Motor, Inc., 43 U.S.L.W. 2074 (Mich. Cir. Ct.). It is within the police power of the legislature to regulate the use of our highways and, as an incident thereto, the use of vehicles upon the highways; Silver v. Silver, 108 Conn. 371, 377, 143 A. 240, aff'd, 280 U.S. 117, 50 S. Ct. 57, 74 L. Ed. 221. There we approved of the so-called guest statute as a reasonable act by the legislature within this regulatory power, and the affirming opinion by the United States Supreme Court contains language that may be adapted to the present controversy: Whether there has been a serious increase in the evils of vexatious litigation in this class of cases, where the carriage is by automobile, is for legislative determination and, if found, may well be the basis of legislative action further restricting the liability. Its wisdom is not the concern of courts. Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 123, 50 S. Ct. 57, 74 L. Ed. 221. And the fact that the provisions apply only to private passenger vehicles and not to commercial vehicles and common carriers is further answered in the Supreme Court opinion (p. 123): [T]here is no constitutional requirement that a regulation, in other respects permissible, must reach every class to which it might be appliedthat the legislature must be held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or none. Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 144 [34 S. Ct. 281, 58 L. Ed. 539]; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 382, 384 [35 S. Ct. 342, 59 L. Ed. 628]; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U.S. 199, 215 [34 S. Ct. 859, 58 L. Ed. 1276]; Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 29 [33 S. Ct. 692, 57 L. Ed. 1050] .... It is enough that the present statute strikes at the evil where it is felt and reaches the class of cases where it most frequently occurs. Section 38-327 (e) provides that all obligations of §§ 14-112 to 14-144 of the financial responsibility law shall remain, while § 38-350 gives the provisions of title 14 primacy over the act in cases of conflict. It should be noted that under § 14-112 it is unclear whether the language, and thus the obligations thereby created, apply solely to owners of vehicles or to operators also, although in Dempsey v. Tynan, 143 Conn. 202, 120 A.2d 700, we construed these provisions to be applicable to owners and operators alike. Reading these provisions consistently with §38-327; Collins v. York, 159 Conn. 150, 162, 267 A.2d 668; we find that the financial responsibility law, as incorporated in § 38-327 (e), must be construed to apply solely to owners of vehicles rather than nonowner operators, to be consistent with the obligations of § 38-327. The no-fault act merely makes insurance a necessary incident of ownership, not of mere operation. Thus, if a driver who does not own a vehicle is operating a private passenger automobile of another individual who does not carry the basic security, in the event of a mishap precipitating a need for basic reparations benefits, for example an injury to a passenger in that vehicle, the owner, who has consciously chosen not to carry security nor file as a self-insurer, and not the operator, is liable under §38-327 (e). To require otherwise might subvert the concept of no-fault and could, arguably, result in a deprivation of property of the nonowner operator without due process of law if the operator is the innocent victim of another motorist's delict. Section 14-112 lists a variety of offenses the commission of which jeopardizes one's operator's license unless a certificate of insurability (form SR-22) is filed indicating proof of insurance. As to owners of private passenger vehicles, no self-incrimination problem exists since it is not required that a signed statement be filed as to whether or not the owner is insured. The owner may elect not to file the form SR-22 and suffer suspension, not necessarily criminal prosecution under § 38-327 (d). Since only owners must carry basic security, however, the privilege or right to hold an operator's license may not be jeopardized if a nonowner operator of a vehicle is not personally insured. Thus, title 14 and title 38 read consistently allow the commissioner to order a certificate of insurability from a vehicle owner, although an operator may still be held to post security under the provisions of title 14. The financial responsibility law was construed in Dempsey v. Tynan, supra, 208: The purpose of the legislature in enacting the financial responsibility provisions of the motor vehicle law was to keep off our highways the financially irresponsible owner or operator of an automobile who cannot respond in damages for the injuries he may inflict, and to require him, as a condition for securing or retaining a registration or an operator's license, to furnish adequate means of satisfying possible claims against him. The effect of § 38-327 is to make the vehicle owner responsible for basic reparations, and thus no necessity exists to require that the nonowner operator post similar security under this statute or jeopardize his license. As to another of the plaintiffs' arguments that this legislation forces the owners of private passenger vehicles to deal with private, profit-seeking companies, we can do no better than to quote the opinion of Justice Reardon in Pinnick v. Cleary, 360 Mass. 1, 25, 271 N.E.2d 592, upholding the Massachusetts no-fault act: Nor can the plaintiff complain because the medium through which the ... self-protection must be obtained is a private, profitmaking corporation, as opposed to some kind of governmentally managed pool.... We see no distinction for due process purposes between the requirement of private insurance for self-protection and for the protection of others. It is an incidental and completely nonobjectionable concomitant of many regulatory statutes that citizens are required thereby to enter into transactions for their own benefit with private corporations. The plaintiffs claim that the underwriting guidelines currently employed by several insurers violate their rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law. The claim is founded upon an allegation that these guidelines are essentially arbitrary and unreasonable, that refusal to accept an applicant's request for insurance stigmatizes that applicant as an unsavory risk thus prejudicing his ability to obtain coverage from one of the other 186 companies in the state and thereby forcing that person to obtain coverage under the assigned risk plan or to face prosecution and license suspension for failure to carry security. We are not persuaded to find as the plaintiffs suggest. The legislature has established a medium for administrative and judicial review whereby any potential insured who feels himself aggrieved by the rates or underwriting policies of any insurer can secure a review of that claim by the company, by the insurance commissioner, and ultimately by the courts. General Statutes § 38-201p. Under Connecticut's assigned risk plan, known as the Connecticut automobile insurance plan, established pursuant to § 14-130, the relevant insurance to satisfy the requirements of the act is available to every driver. This plan requires each of the 187 insurance companies, in proportion to their automobile insurance writings in Connecticut, to insure the small number of applicants who are considered to be unreasonably high risk applicants. The availability of insurance to all applicants through the plan is documented in the DOT study of assigned risk plans which specifically notes that Connecticut is one of only nine states whose assigned risk plans guarantee coverage to every licensed driver who continues to pay the premiums. The presence of the insurance commissioner of Connecticut as an ex officio member of the governing board of the Connecticut automobile insurance plan further demonstrates the state's commitment to assure the availability of insurance at reasonable rates for all licensed applicants. It also is appropriate to note that the number and identity of persons purchasing insurance through the assigned risk plan varies from year to year as persons in the assigned risk plan find insurance available to them through the ordinary market place, while others, because of their driving records, find they must purchase insurance through the assigned risk plan. And finally, § 38-327 (a) does not by its terms require the security to be purchased from private insurers; indeed, as the parties have stipulated, at least three owners self-insure under the act.