Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle Title Electronic Signatures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to allow electronic signatures on duplicate total-loss titles advances for discussion
Summary
LB 225 would remove a notary requirement for duplicate title applications when a vehicle is sold to an insurer after a total loss, supporters said it will speed settlements; no opponents appeared at the committee hearing.
Sen. Dixie Garecke introduced LB 225 to the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee to remove the notary requirement for duplicate title applications in the specific circumstance where an owner transfers title to an insurer after a total loss.
“LB 225 modernizes the title transfer process by removing the notary requirement for electronic signatures in specific circumstances,” Sen. Garecke said in opening remarks. The sponsor emphasized the change applies narrowly: when a vehicle is being transferred into an insurance company's name following a total loss.
Mark Bender of Copart, a company that sells total-loss vehicles for insurers, said the notary requirement creates delay and hardship for consumers whose vehicles are not drivable after a total loss. “Vehicle has a, a Nebraska vehicle has a total loss. And, the customer can't find their title… they have to order a duplicate title. In order to do that, they have to have the application notarized,” Bender said, explaining why paper notarization can stall settlements. He asked lawmakers to allow electronic signing as other motor-vehicle forms already allow.
Sen. Garecke and proponents noted the change aligns with national practice and with guidance from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supporting electronic signatures and recognized electronic authentication. Proponents said insurers remain financially responsible to indemnify legitimate owners and existing consumer protections would remain in place.
No opponents or neutral testifiers appeared at the hearing and the sponsor waived closing; the committee did not take a vote during the session. Supporters framed the bill as a narrow consumer-facing modernization that should reduce delay in paying settlements after a total loss while preserving verification safeguards.
The committee has not yet taken further action on LB 225.
