What is a ‘financial responsibility’ law?

[Paul88]

What is a ‘financial responsibility’ law?
A "financial responsibility" law requires you to prove your financial ability to pay for damages at the time you are involved in an accident or are convicted of a traffic violation. This type of law does not require that you have insurance or other proof of financial responsibility at the time of vehicle registration. However, failure to demonstrate the required level of financial responsibility at the time of an accident or traffic violation can result in suspension of your driver's license or revocation of your vehicle registration. Under these laws, the requirement to demonstrate financial responsibility is not based on fault. All parties involved in an accident must show the necessary proof or face the penalties imposed by the law. Maintaining an automobile insurance policy is the most common way to comply with a financial responsibility law.

[Sweed]

The Revised Code of Washington is clear that proof of financial responsibility is required only for the following:

1. Accidents with damage in excess of $700
2. Convictions
3. Bond Forfeiture

Demonstrating proof of financial responsibility is not required for vehicle registration or routine traffic stops.

Does that stop the agents dressed in blue from requesting proof of insurance?
No.

"I'm sorry officer, that is a private contract that you are not party to."

[Paul88]

Originally Posted by Sweed

The Revised Code of Washington is clear that proof of financial responsibility is required only for the following:

1. Accidents with damage in excess of $700
2. Convictions
3. Bond Forfeiture

Demonstrating proof of financial responsibility is not required for vehicle registration or routine traffic stops.

Does that stop the agents dressed in blue from requesting proof of insurance?
No.

"I'm sorry officer, that is a private contract that you are not party to."

Where did you get this info. I am fighting a no insurance ticket ( 1000$ fine) in NJ. Can you point me to a place where i could see such info?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Sweed

The Revised Code of Washington is clear that proof of financial responsibility is required only for the following:

1. Accidents with damage in excess of $700
2. Convictions
3. Bond Forfeiture

Demonstrating proof of financial responsibility is not required for vehicle registration or routine traffic stops.

Does that stop the agents dressed in blue from requesting proof of insurance?
No.

"I'm sorry officer, that is a private contract that you are not party to."

Before you start giving that kind of quasi-legal advice, you need to read ALL of the code not just that part:

RCW 46.30.020
Liability insurance or other financial responsibility required -- Violations -- Exceptions.
(1)(a) No person may operate a motor vehicle subject to registration under chapter 46.16, RCW in this state unless the person is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy with liability limits of at least the amounts provided in RCW 46.29.090, is self-insured as provided in RCW 46.29.630, is covered by a certificate of deposit in conformance with RCW 46.29.550, or is covered by a liability bond of at least the amounts provided in RCW 46.29.090. Written proof of financial responsibility for motor vehicle operation must be provided on the request of a law enforcement officer in the format specified under RCW 46.30.030.
(b) A person who drives a motor vehicle that is required to be registered in another state that requires drivers and owners of vehicles in that state to maintain insurance or financial responsibility shall, when requested by a law enforcement officer, provide evidence of financial responsibility or insurance as is required by the laws of the state in which the vehicle is registered.

(c) When asked to do so by a law enforcement officer, failure to display an insurance identification card as specified under RCW 46.30.030 creates a presumption that the person does not have motor vehicle insurance.
(d) Failure to provide proof of motor vehicle insurance is a traffic infraction and is subject to penalties as set by the supreme court under RCW 46.63.110 or community restitution.

(2) If a person cited for a violation of subsection (1) of this section appears in person before the court or a violations bureau and provides written evidence that at the time the person was cited, he or she was in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of subsection (1) of this section, the citation shall be dismissed and the court or violations bureau may assess court administrative costs of twenty-five dollars at the time of dismissal. In lieu of personal appearance, a person cited for a violation of subsection (1) of this section may, before the date scheduled for the person's appearance before the court or violations bureau, submit by mail to the court or violations bureau written evidence that at the time the person was cited, he or she was in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of subsection (1) of this section, in which case the citation shall be dismissed without cost, except that the court or violations bureau may assess court administrative costs of twenty-five dollars at the time of dismissal.

That's very similar to most states. Some municipalities are even implementing vehicle impound ordinances for non-insured motorists, so if you drive without insurance, the cost to get your car back can be a lot more than the cost of the insurance.

[Sweed]

I don't drive a Motor Vehicle.

[Sweed]

1] It is undisputed that, at the time of this accident, Mr. Boldt was not subject to the requirements of our financial responsibility statute (RCW 46.29) and that his insurance coverage was a matter of voluntary contract. . . The statute speaks in terms of “proof of financial responsibility for the future,” and defines that phrase in terms of “accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of said proof . . ” RCW 46.29.260. The statute does not impose its requirements as to proof of financial responsibility until the occurrence of certain accidents, convictions or bail forfeitures. RCW 46.29.250; RCW 46.29.060-.080.” ROYSE v. BOLDT, 80 Wn.2d 44, 46, 491 P.2d 644 [No. 42072. En Banc. December 9, 1971.] And;

“In 1963, after Barkwill, the Washington legislature enacted a financial responsibility law, RCW 46.29. Under the provisions of this statute, the driver after an injury accident must deposit security, unless he or she has an “automobile liability policy.” RCW 46.29.060, .080. In addition, the driver involved in such an accident must furnish proof of financial responsibility for the future. RCW 46.29.260, .420.” MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 95 Wn.2d 373, 378, 622 P.2d 1234 [No. 47034-1. En Banc. December 31, 1980.] And;

“. . . the act does not require mandatory insurance coverage, . . . The financial responsibility act does not require an individual to prove that he is financially able to compensate those he may injure through the use of his vehicles until he is is involved in an automobile accident resulting in bodily injury or death of any person or property damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060.” MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 97 Wn.2d 203 206, 643 P.2d 441 [Nos. 47145-2, 47202-5. En Banc. April 8, 1982.]; MILLER v. AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY CO., 70 Wn. App. 192, 197, 851 P.2d 1253 (June 1, 1993.) And;

“Under our financial responsibility act, an individual need not prove financial responsibility until a vehicle owned or driven by him is involved in an accident resulting in bodily injury or death of any person, or property damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060. Even after such an accident has occurred, proof of financial responsibility for the accident and in the future may be made in a number of ways, including, but not limited to proof of liability insurance. RCW 46.29.070, 080, .450. Since the Legislature has not seen fit to require mandatory insurance coverage, we will not replace its assessment of public policy with our own. . . . we cannot require mandatory insurance where the Legislature has declined to do so. . . WILLIAMS, C.J. (Dissenting) ...As we noted in Wiscomb, the provisions of the financial responsibility act, RCW 46.29, do not become mandatory until the driver is involved in an accident causing injury or damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060; Wiscomb, at 206.” PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. v. JESTER, 102 Wn.2d 78, 81, 82, 83, 683 P.2d 180 [No. 50007-0. En Banc. June 21, 1984.]; JOHNSON v. DEPT. OF LICENSING, 46 Wn. App. 701, 731 P.2d 1097 (December 22, 1986). And;

[Sweed]

Paul,

Research the NJ code and see if it does not have a section similar to the RCW on insurance. It would appear the the two RCW's mentioned above conflict with each other, but they don't in the slightest if you study and understand the laws of statutory construction.

1.) 1st, you must read the whole statute i.e. the whole chapter on Insurance.

2.) 2nd, you cannot add or substract any words, sentences, paragraphs, sections or subsections from the statute.

3.) 3rd, the law of "para materia" requires the court to give full force and effect to all the statutes that relate to the same subject matter, i.e. Insurance so that no other statute, no other section, no other subsection, no other sentence, no other paragraph and no other word is rendered "superfluous."

4.) 4th when you read all the sections referred to in RCW 46.30.020 that JRB provides above, they all mention that an an "accident" must have occurred prior to the police officer being authorized to ask you for proof of insurance.

5.) 5th, you cannot read or enforce RCW 46.30.020 to render all those other sections "superfluous."

[Shoonra]

Financial Responsibility laws vary from state to state. Sometimes a person is not required to get and have proof of financial responsibility until he gets into his first accident. Sometimes the requirement applies only to the owner of the vehicle. Sometimes it's required of every driver license applicant.

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of the Financial Responsibility law is constitutional.

For most people, financial responsibility is shown by carrying an auto insurance policy. The insurance is acceptable only if approved by the state govt - either the insurance commission or the DMV or some similar authority. I mention this because there was a phony-balony car insurance scam running only a few years ago that got the attention of a bunch of state insurance commissions. Some large commercial outfits, such as trucking fleets, have other arrangements, rather than buying a lot of insurance policies, but those other arrangements also have to be approved by the state govt.