Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Uninsured Motorists Penalties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate transportation committee considers tougher penalties for driving without insurance; bill laid on table
Summary
Senate File 1179, introduced by Senator Jasinski, would raise fines for drivers caught without insurance and create an escalating penalty for repeat offenses. Testimony cited Minnesota uninsured-driver estimates, enforcement gaps and equity concerns. Committee laid the bill on the table for further work.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Senate Transportation Committee on Feb. 12 heard testimony on Senate File 11-79, a bipartisan measure authored by Senator Jasinski that would raise fines and penalties for drivers found operating vehicles without insurance. The committee laid the bill on the table for further work and potential future hearings.
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Jasinski, told the panel the measure responds to constituent concerns about people repeatedly driving without insurance and leaving victims to cover repair and medical costs. Jasinski said the bill increases fines and creates an escalating structure for repeat offenders.
Aaron Cocking, president and CEO of the Insurance Federation of Minnesota, testified in support. “According to a 02/2021 study done by the Insurance Research Council, 10 percent of all drivers in Minnesota are driving without insurance,” Cocking told the committee. He said the uninsured drive up costs for insured drivers and that the state’s compulsory-insurance framework requires enforcement. Cocking estimated that each uninsured vehicle raises costs for other drivers by about $78 per year.
Officer Tony Larson of the Faribault Police Department described routine traffic stops that find repeat uninsured drivers and said victims of crashes can face lengthy delays and uncertain reimbursement. “We encounter drivers on traffic stops who do not have insurance,” Larson said, adding many repeat offenders do not appear to change behavior after a citation.
Committee members pressed on two recurring issues: whether higher fines would deter repeat offenders, and whether increased penalties would disproportionately harm low-income drivers who lack reliable access to insurance. Senator Paul said the proposed penalties (which include an escalation up to $850 for repeated violations as described in committee remarks) would be “extremely high” and risk pushing people into deeper financial trouble. Senator McKeown and others argued that many people who drive uninsured do so because they cannot afford coverage and urged coupling enforcement with programs to increase access to affordable insurance and transportation alternatives.
Several senators and testifiers also discussed enforcement logistics. Members described gaps in post-accident follow-up by law enforcement—Cocking said the likelihood of law enforcement follow-up can be “a coin flip” depending on circumstances—and noted that when drivers report accidents during busy conditions, troopers may not respond. The committee discussed the state’s vehicle registration process and past attempts to require insurers’ policy numbers at renewal; witnesses said some motorists buy coverage long enough to obtain proof for tab renewal and then cancel the policy.
Lawmakers asked about technological fixes. Members referenced past efforts to validate insurance at registration (attestation → policy number recorded) and earlier systems such as MNLARS; witnesses said a real-time interface between law enforcement, Driver and Vehicle Services and insurers could be a “gold standard,” but building such interfaces has been constrained by state technology and cost.
The committee did not vote on the bill. Chair Dibble asked for additional conversations and indicated members and the sponsor would explore options, including ways to pair enforcement with prevention, education and technical fixes. Senate File 11-79 was laid on the table to be taken up at a future hearing.
The committee hearing included multiple personal accounts of uninsured crashes, data cited by industry representatives and repeated concerns that penalties must be designed so they deter repeat offenders without further destabilizing low-income households that lack affordable alternatives.
The committee asked staff to continue work on enforcement options and potential policy changes, including whether registration systems can be tied to insurer validation and whether court or diversion options (community service for first offenses, for example) should be expanded or clarified.
