Court Opinion

ID: 9717531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:05:12.113698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.713564
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Section 1786(a) of the Vehicle Code provides that every motor vehicle “required to be registered under this title which is operated or currently registered shall be covered by financial responsibility.” (Emphasis added.) The purpose is to ensure that all vehicles operated on the highways within this Commonwealth are covered by some acceptable form of financial responsibility in order to protect the general public from loss by injury or death caused by uninsured vehicles. *1092This purpose can be achieved in one of two ways: either by the maintenance of the requisite insurance on a motor vehicle or by the non-operation of an uninsured vehicle. See sections 1786(d)(1) and 1786(f) of the Vehicle Code.
In the case before us, it is conclusive that the vehicle in question was not operated during the lapse of insurance coverage. Thus, the spirit of the law has been satisfied. Furthermore, DOT’s failure to advise Jones about the procedural steps that must be taken in order to avoid suspension of his registration until it was simply too late clashes with the law’s objectives.1
DOT’s pursuit of this matter constitutes an unreasonable and oppressive enforcement of the Vehicle Code. Therefore, I believe the order of the trial court sustaining Jones’ appeal should be affirmed.

. DOT did not advise Jones of the necessity to acquire other insurance within 31 days from the date of lapse or the need to return to DOT his current registration plate and card until November 4, 1997, some 71 days after the date of lapse.