Opinion ID: 3153989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequate Insurance During an Accident

Text: Gill contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of inadequate insurance during an accident because the State presented insufficient proof that he did not have insurance coverage for his vehicle on March 29, 2012. Arkansas Code Annotated section 27-22-104 (Supp. 2013) provides, in pertinent part, (a)(1) It is unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle within this state unless the motor vehicle and the person’s operation of the motor vehicle are each covered by: (B) An insurance policy issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in this state. .... 9 Cite as 2015 Ark. 421 (2)(A) Failure to present proof of insurance coverage at the time of a traffic stop or arrest or a failure of the Vehicle Insurance Database or proof of an insurance card issued under § 23-89-213 to show current insurance coverage at the time of the traffic stop creates a rebuttable presumption that the motor vehicle or the person’s operation of the motor vehicle is uninsured. When the operator of any motor vehicle is involved in a motor-vehicle accident in this state and the vehicle, or the operator while driving the vehicle, is found not to be adequately insured, as required by section 27-22-104(a)(1), the operator shall be deemed guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Ark. Code Ann. § 27-22-105(a) (Supp. 2013). Trooper Simpson testified that Gill provided him with an insurance document at the scene. That document, marked as State’s Exhibit Number 10, was admitted into evidence. State’s Exhibit Number 10 reflected coverage from December 18, 2010, to June 18, 2011—a time period prior to the collision—and did not reflect coverage on the day the collision occurred. Gill claims that, at trial, he provided proof of insurance on the pickup truck that he was driving at the time of the collision. The coverage period indicated on the document, which was admitted as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 7, was from December 16, 2011, through June 15, 2012. Stephanie May, a State Farm Insurance agent who handled Gill’s insurance account, testified that Defendant’s Exhibit No. 7 was not proof of insurance; rather, it was a renewal certificate that was merely an offer of insurance for the stated period of time. According to May, Gill accepted the renewal offer, to be paid on a monthly basis. May testified that Gill’s automobile insurance ceased to exist after February 16, 2012, for nonpayment of the premium. May testified that the policy had not been renewed by the date of the collision. No other proof of insurance was offered by Gill. 10 Cite as 2015 Ark. 421 We find no merit in Gill’s argument that the circuit court had to resort to speculation or conjecture to determine that he did not have adequate insurance coverage for his vehicle on March 29, 2012. When Gill was asked to provide proof of insurance at the scene, he gave Trooper Simpson an insurance document showing that he was insured before the collision. Gill’s failure to present proof of insurance coverage at the time of the accident created a rebuttable presumption that his vehicle was uninsured. See Ark. Code Ann. § 27-22104(a)(2)(A). At trial, Gill’s insurance agent, May, testified that Gill’s insurance was not in force at the time of the accident. Although Gill contends that the document admitted at trial as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 7 was proof of insurance, May testified that the document was a renewal offer for coverage beginning on December 16, 2011, and ending on June 15, 2012, not proof of insurance for that time period. She also testified that Gill’s insurance ceased to exist after February 16, 2012, because he did not pay the premium. In sum, Gill failed to rebut the presumption that his vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Gill’s motion to dismiss the charge of inadequate insurance. Affirmed in part; reversed and dismissed in part; court of appeals opinion vacated. Hancock Law Firm, by: Charles D. Hancock, for appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 11