Court Opinion

ID: 9589287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:43:21.518774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:33.223255
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
There can be no doubt that the General Assembly, by the enactment of the Automobile Reparation Reform Act of 1974, intended to effect a system of compulsory automobile liability insurance.
While I agree with the majority that Code Section 56-11-740 did not require that the insurer give any notice in the case of the expiration of the policy, Section 56-11-220 did require the insurer to give such notice. The pertinent portion of that section reads:
Every insurer writing automobile liability insurance in this State and every provider of other security approved and accepted by the Chief Highway Commissioner in lieu of such insurance shall immediately notify the Chief Highway Commissioner of the lapse or termination of any such insurance or security____(Emphasis added).
It is conceded that respondent gave no notice of the expiration of the policy to the Chief Highway Commissioner.
The Legislative intent to provide a system of compulsory automobile insurance can only be effected if automobile owners maintain continuous insurance coverage. The Legislature provided for enforcement of coverage requirements by providing in Section 56-11-220 as follows:
Upon receipt of any such notice the Chief Highway Commissioner shall make a reasonable effort to notify the person that his certificate of registration has been suspended and shall recover the certificate from such person and the motor vehicle registration plates from the vehicle concerned.
Certainly, the notice requirements of Section 56-11-220 place a clear duty upon the insurer to give notice of the lapse *337of insurance coverage so that the Chief Highway Commissioner can cancel the insured’s license to operate the vehicle. The only reasonable conclusion is that the consequence of noncompliance by the insurer is a continuation of the coverage provided.
I find no reasonable basis for the conclusion by the majority that the provisions of Code Section 56-11-220, requiring the insurer to give notice, should be read out of the statute because the provisions of Code Section 56-11-740 also required that the insured give notice of the termination of the policy.
I would reverse the judgment and, therefore, dissent.