Proof of Insurance

[JoeyMac323]

Hey all,

Are you guys putting proof on insurance violations as correctible?

Thanks as usual,

JoeyMac

[G-Man]

16028(a) VC is not a correctable violation. Normally, the court will dismiss the violation if the violator can prove they had insurance at the time the citation was given (for those who "forgot it at home," or "just renewed it and I can't find my card." ).

[JoeyMac323]

Good to know.

Thanks.

[stickbug14]

In Santa Clara County where I work as a cop, you can make 16028(a) CVC a correctable violation. In the last county I worked, only the court can sign off the ticket.

[dw]

In Santa Clara County where I work as a cop, you can make 16028(a) CVC a correctable violation. In the last county I worked, only the court can sign off the ticket.

You gotta' love counties that do their own thing... I've seen courts that will make any eligible violation correctable, even if the officer marks the "not correctable" box in accordance with CVC 40610(b). :rolleyes:

16028(a) is not eligible for correction per 40303.5.

Notice to Correct Violation for Specified Infractions
40303.5. Whenever any person is arrested for any of the following offenses, the arresting officer shall permit the arrested person to execute a notice containing a promise to correct the violation in accordance with the provisions of Section 40610 unless the arresting officer finds that any of the disqualifying conditions specified in subdivision (b) of Section 40610 exist:
(a) Any registration infraction set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000).
(b) Any driver’s license infraction set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 12500), and subdivision (a) of Section 12951, relating to possession of driver’s license.
(c) Section 21201, relating to bicycle equipment.
(d) Any infraction involving equipment set forth in Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), Division 13 (commencing with Section 29000), Division 14.8 (commencing with Section 34500), Division 16 (commencing with Section 36000), Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), and Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000).

[WantToBeCHP]

When you get your insurance card, put you policy # on the back of your registration. This way you will never have to look for your insurance card again.

[SweetTaterPie]

The single thing that would solve the insurance proof dilemma is within the power of DMV to accomplish. Some states require proof of insurance to complete registration for each vehicle, each year. The state of Washington, for example, also includes the insurance company name and the policy number issued to the vehicle so insured. California would be well advised to emulate Washington's policy in that regard. Until such time as California includes that information on its registration cards, officers are stuck with interpreting the lame paper offerings from a myriad of insurers.
I believe that forcing an officer to determine validity of a particular paper document, when those documents are as varied and inconsistent in their information as the insurers they represent, such requirement is ridiculous.

[Capsicum]

The single thing that would solve the insurance proof dilemma is within the power of DMV to accomplish. Some states require proof of insurance to complete registration for each vehicle, each year. The state of Washington, for example, also includes the insurance company name and the policy number issued to the vehicle so insured. California would be well advised to emulate Washington's policy in that regard. Until such time as California includes that information on its registration cards, officers are stuck with interpreting the lame paper offerings from a myriad of insurers.
I believe that forcing an officer to determine validity of a particular paper document, when those documents are as varied and inconsistent in their information as the insurers they represent, such requirement is ridiculous.

Amen!

[PeckerHead]

Didn't we just hear that CA DMV is going to start including insurance info (validity or something like that) on 28's? Seems like we just received some written information regarding this.

[dw]

Didn't we just hear that CA DMV is going to start including insurance info (validity or something like that) on 28's? Seems like we just received some written information regarding this.
They are, but I do not believe it will contain specific policy information. It will only specify whether insurance is on-file. Seems to me a policy change may be in order since our information seems redundant.

[SweetTaterPie]

It's true that CA DMV is including "insurance certificate on file," or something very close to that wording, but the same dilemma exists for the road dog. The burden of proving insurance coverage on a given vehicle is on the back of the motorist who drives it, not the cop. Since we are required to include a company name and policy number, wouldn't it make sense for DMV to include that info on the registration paper. Talk about documentary evidence of failure to maintain insurance...criminal courts would have a field day. No more 'I forgot and let it lapse,' or, 'I swear I have it, just not with me' excuses. You ask for the license and reg paper. If they don't have the reg with them you cite for the original violation, CVC 4454 (a), and CVC 16028 (a). No more need for individual insurance documents from every company out there.

[chico.medic]

If DMV is keeping insurance info on file, would they need that before they mailed out plates for a newly purchased vehicle? Because that might explain why I haven't received my plates yet. :redface: Just take a copy of the card to them?

[futurechp]

If DMV is keeping insurance info on file, would they need that before they mailed out plates for a newly purchased vehicle? Because that might explain why I haven't received my plates yet. :redface: Just take a copy of the card to them?

That's a good question. I'm in the same situation. I bought a new car, I have insurance and I have received the registration card with the tags, but no license plates. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I live in a condo and maybe the plates won't fit in the mailbox :think: , but I haven't gotten any notice from the USPS.

I'm going to contact the DMV and I'll let you know what they tell me.

[SB 405]

[quote=futurechp;29714]That's a good question. I'm in the same situation. I bought a new car, I have insurance and I have received the registration card with the tags, but no license plates. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I live in a condo and maybe the plates won't fit in the mailbox :think: , but I haven't gotten any notice from the USPS.



If I were you I'd call the DMV ASAP. I've never heard of tags and registration arriving separately in the mail. It all comes in the brown envelope together. If the plates did not fit in your mailbox I'm sure the mail carrier would have left a notice advising you had a package to pick up at your local post office.

[chico.medic]

I have not even received my permanent reg. I still have the temp in my windshield. I bought the car in Feb.

[SB 405]

I waited almost five months for my plates. After calling the dealer numerous times and being told "Sir,it takes time" I called the DMV and was told the plates were mailed two months prior to my calling. I then took all my paperwork to the DMV and was issued everything on the spot.

[chico.medic]

Called the dealership today. They just received the stuff BACK from DMV because it was incomplete. :doh: Greeeeaaaatttttt!

[MikeEMT609]

Hello Everyone.
Just signed up for the site and have a question for you-
My current insurance policy is due for renewal this Sunday (May 6) so I thought I shop around for better rates, and I found a company that would insure me for about $500 less per year then my current company so I decided to change insurance companies.
I mailed my application packet in last week and talked to my new insurance company yesterday letting me know they were processing my application and I should recieve my new policy in about 10 days which means I'll recieve proof of insurance from them on or about May 11.

They also gave me a refrence number that they said will be my policy number.
Question-What should I do in the meantime (between May 5 <effective date of new policy> and May 11 <day I should recieve my policy and insurance cards>) if I'm involved in an accident or pulled over and I don't have official proof of insurance in the car?

When I talked to the insurance company last week they said DMV will be notified of my change of insurance and that there was no lapse in coverage.

Will the refrence/policy number along with the insurance company name be enough until the paperwork arrives from the insurance company?

[dw]

Will the refrence/policy number along with the insurance company name be enough until the paperwork arrives from the insurance company?Most likely. At the least it will work until your actual card arrives. That is, if you are involved in a collision with only the reference number in-hand, an officer may want to see the actual card when it arrives.

[TLW]

I'm pretty sure that Oregon coppers impound for no insurance. Their reg cards have all of the insurance info on them. I can't wait until California goes to the same thing, instead of just showing "on file". That would require a call to DMV, right? I know that our '28s might indicate that someones reg has been cancelled due to no insurance, but I havn't seen it yet.

[chpocd]

Be careful and don't speed.

[MikeEMT609]

Most likely. At the least it will work until your actual card arrives. That is, if you are involved in a collision with only the reference number in-hand, an officer may want to see the actual card when it arrives.
Thanks for the information.
I'm pretty sure that Oregon coppers impound for no insurance. Their reg cards have all of the insurance info on them. I can't wait until California goes to the same thing, instead of just showing "on file". That would require a call to DMV, right? I know that our '28s might indicate that someones reg has been cancelled due to no insurance, but I havn't seen it yet.
I'm in Los Angeles so I don't think I have to worry about Oregon Officers.
Be careful and don't speed.
I've been driving for 27 years and have NEVER been stopped for speeding (I drive close to the speed limit all the time). In fact I have only recieved ONE ticket back in 1990 for rolling thru a stop sign (I stopped, officer said I didn't, but I thought it would be best to pay the fine and take traffic school to avoid the points).

[futurechp]

well a california stop is not really a stop :lol: ... sorry just messing with you :biggrin: .

[MikeEMT609]

well a california stop is not really a stop :lol: ... sorry just messing with you :biggrin: .

No Problem my friend!
I do remember coming to a quick stop before continuing on my way, but the officer said I didn't. At first I was going to fight the ticket, but then decided it would be cheaper to simply pay the fine and take traffic school and avoid the points then take a day off and risk loosing the case and still having to pay the fine and take the points.

[WannaBeaChippie]

In my case the card I had expired I had already renewed my insurance but I forgot to put the new card in my car :hitwall:. When I was stopped the insurance card was 3 days over. I had already paid for my insurance, but the officer cited me saying I still didn't have proof because it was old. Can I goto court and see the judge to show that I did have proof during the stop I just had the wrong card in the vehicle?

I originally got stopped because I had no front plate on the vehicle, but it was displayed in the window so I got away with that one.

[WannaBeaChippie]

In my case the card I had expired I had already renewed my insurance but I forgot to put the new card in my car :hitwall:. When I was stopped the insurance card was 3 days over. I had already paid for my insurance, but the officer cited me saying I still didn't have proof because it was old. Can I goto court and see the judge to show that I did have proof during the stop I just had the wrong card in the vehicle?

I originally got stopped because I had no front plate on the vehicle, but it was displayed in the window so I got away with that one.I guess I'll just have to see...

[2100VC]

I originally got stopped because I had no front plate on the vehicle, but it was displayed in the window so I got away with that one.

Displaying your plate in the window is not allowed. Did you pull a Jedi mind-trick on the officer?

I always think it's funny when people put the license plate in their back window or on the dash board.....that is simply screaming "PULL ME OVER!!!!... OOO..OOO...PICK ME, PICK ME!!!!"

It's almost better not to have one at all. (If that is advice...I guess)


5200. (a) When two license plates are issued by the department for
use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which
they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear.

or...

5201(f) No covering may be used on license plates

Either way, in the window is not the front of car or the windshield "covers" the plate.

[SweetTaterPie]

I guess I'll just have to see...

Here's the bottom line: CVC 16028 (a) requires a motorist to present evidence of financial responsibility, when demanded by a peace officer. A proof of insurance card is not viable proof of current insurance, if that card shows an expired policy. The Officer must be able to determine whether other documentation/facts exist to establish current insurance. If not, he is obliged to "sign you up."

Th courts here in Humboldt will dismiss the violation on submission of proof the policy was, in fact, valid at the time and on the date of the stop. The finding does not indicate the Officer erred, it is merely an allowance by this court. I believe they require a $10 "administrative fee" (read "fine").

[WannaBeaChippie]

Here's the bottom line: CVC 16028 (a) requires a motorist to present evidence of financial responsibility, when demanded by a peace officer. A proof of insurance card is not viable proof of current insurance, if that card shows an expired policy. The Officer must be able to determine whether other documentation/facts exist to establish current insurance. If not, he is obliged to "sign you up."

Th courts here in Humboldt will dismiss the violation on submission of proof the policy was, in fact, valid at the time and on the date of the stop. The finding does not indicate the Officer erred, it is merely an allowance by this court. I believe they require a $10 "administrative fee" (read "fine").Okay...I just wanted to make sure, I have insurance I was just being irresponsible I really forgot to put the new card in the car. Thanks for the response....:wink:

[SweetTaterPie]

WannaBeA...

Wasn't trying to come off as superior, or unsympathetic. Many non-LEO folks don't understand they need to provide evidence on the scene of the stop, and an expired card just doesn't meet the legal burden. However...say I have a current registration paper that shows the vehicle's tags were just renewed (it's May 2007 and the registration paper gives an expiration of May 2008). I could then logically assume the vehicle IS insured, as CA DMV requires insurance proof to complete registration. While that would not technically satisfy the statute, the intent of the law (insured motorists on the road) would certainly have been accomplished.

STP :smile:

[MikeEMT609]

WannaBeA...

Wasn't trying to come off as superior, or unsympathetic. Many non-LEO folks don't understand they need to provide evidence on the scene of the stop, and an expired card just doesn't meet the legal burden. However...say I have a current registration paper that shows the vehicle's tags were just renewed (it's May 2007 and the registration paper gives an expiration of May 2008). I could then logically assume the vehicle IS insured, as CA DMV requires insurance proof to complete registration. While that would not technically satisfy the statute, the intent of the law (insured motorists on the road) would certainly have been accomplished.

STP :smile:

While it's true that proof of insurance is required to renew your vehicle registration, and one can assume that if you have a CURRENT registration car for the car means it's insured correct?

I believe that DMV will revoke vehicle registration if they find out your insurance was cancelled/expired, so while having current tags on the car and a current registration card in the car doesn't mean it's insured.

I just thought of a question on this topic-
If an officer runs the plates of a car before (or after) making a stop does the computer come back showing if the car is insured, and does it say who the insurance carrier is?

I would think that if car shows insured, but the driver doesn't have a current car then they can be cited and required to provide proof to either CHP or the Court, is that correct?

I have my current insurance card in the car, I was just wondering how the system works

[SweetTaterPie]

While it's true that proof of insurance is required to renew your vehicle registration, and one can assume that if you have a CURRENT registration car for the car means it's insured correct?

I believe that DMV will revoke vehicle registration if they find out your insurance was cancelled/expired, so while having current tags on the car and a current registration card in the car doesn't mean it's insured.

I just thought of a question on this topic-
If an officer runs the plates of a car before (or after) making a stop does the computer come back showing if the car is insured, and does it say who the insurance carrier is?

I would think that if car shows insured, but the driver doesn't have a current car then they can be cited and required to provide proof to either CHP or the Court, is that correct?

I have my current insurance card in the car, I was just wondering how the system works

You're correct; a current vehicle registration card does not guarantee the owner maintained the policy after his/her vehicle's registration was completed by DMV. Yes, a driver can be cited for not having evidence of current insurance in his/her possession (were you paying attention to the previous posts?). Via the foregoing, I was attempting to illustrate how I, as an officer, might be inclined to give a driver a break, should certain other factors be present.

Let's say you, for example, were stopped for a speeding violation. The officer requests the usual documents and, lo and behold, your insurance card is missing from your wallet, or the new one you just received from Progressive is on the kitchen table. You know your vehicle is insured, you have cards in your vehicle, good right up to few days ago, but you're batting zilch for current evidence. The officer, without asking pertinent questions which might avoid a costly fine, simply bones you for the speed and the insurance-proof violation. Now, I mentioned the court in Humboldt County, where the traffic judge has allowed belated proof to be presented, and who will dismiss the violation with a $10 administrative fee...sort of like a fix-it ticket. News flash! CVC 16028 (a) does not fall under CVC 40610 (b). That latter Section laundry lists Vehicle Code violations that may be dismissed on correction. Failure to provide PROOF of insurance on the demand of a PO is not among them. I choose to use the noodle between my ears to assure a costly fine is necessary, before issuing the no-second-chance citation. Some drivers deserve that cite, others do not. Thankfully, human beings with beating hearts still drive patrol cars. Last word: tickets are a tool to promote reasonable and prudent driving behavior, through direct application (you receive the cite) and indirect experience (you saw someone receive a cite). Loss of capital is the most efficient way to influence behavior...short of lethal injection. Some people take a verbal warning to heart, while some need time behind bars; but a single approach is never successful to all people, all the time.

[MikeEMT609]

You're correct; a current vehicle registration card does not guarantee the owner maintained the policy after his/her vehicle's registration was completed by DMV. Yes, a driver can be cited for not having evidence of current insurance in his/her possession (were you paying attention to the previous posts?). Via the foregoing, I was attempting to illustrate how I, as an officer, might be inclined to give a driver a break, should certain other factors be present.

<<Yes, I believe I paid attention to the other posts on this subject. I was asking something that I thought was relevant to the topic, sorry if it was addressed before my post.>>

Let's say you, for example, were stopped for a speeding violation. The officer requests the usual documents and, lo and behold, your insurance card is missing from your wallet, or the new one you just received from Progressive is on the kitchen table. You know your vehicle is insured, you have cards in your vehicle, good right up to few days ago, but you're batting zilch for current evidence. The officer, without asking pertinent questions which might avoid a costly fine, simply bones you for the speed and the insurance-proof violation. Now, I mentioned the court in Humboldt County, where the traffic judge has allowed belated proof to be presented, and who will dismiss the violation with a $10 administrative fee...sort of like a fix-it ticket. News flash! CVC 16028 (a) does not fall under CVC 40610 (b). That latter Section laundry lists Vehicle Code violations that may be dismissed on correction. Failure to provide PROOF of insurance on the demand of a PO is not among them. I choose to use the noodle between my ears to assure a costly fine is necessary, before issuing the no-second-chance citation. Some drivers deserve that cite, others do not. Thankfully, human beings with beating hearts still drive patrol cars. Last word: tickets are a tool to promote reasonable and prudent driving behavior, through direct application (you receive the cite) and indirect experience (you saw someone receive a cite). Loss of capital is the most efficient way to influence behavior...short of lethal injection. Some people take a verbal warning to heart, while some need time behind bars; but a single approach is never successful to all people, all the time.

For the record I've been driving for 27 years and in that time I have only recieved ONE traffic ticket. I try and drive safely all the time as I can't afford any tickets. In regard to this topic...proof of insurance...Since I got my license I have always maintained insurance on my cars, and for the last few years I have bought higher limits of liability then required by law.
Have I been stopped other times and been given a warning, yes a couple of times. When I was stopped I treated the officer with respect, and I was given a warning a couple times (and I was more careful since then), and one time I was given a ticket. In that case I also treated the officers with respect and even shook their hands and wished them a good day after getting the ticket.

Back on topic-
The question I asked (or thought I asked) was if insurance status showed on your computer when you run the plates (since DMV revokes your registration if your insurance is cancelled), and I believe I got my answer, and I appreciate youe help.

[G-Man]

Back on topic-
The question I asked (or thought I asked) was if insurance status showed on your computer when you run the plates (since DMV revokes your registration if your insurance is cancelled), and I believe I got my answer, and I appreciate youe help.

It may or may not show the status. It depends if the DMV has been notified at the time the inquiry was run. Even then, if you do not have proof of insurance (a card), we cannot get your insurance company and policy number. You need to have the card with you not only in the event you might get pulled over, but in the event you are involved in a collision as well. That is, after all, part of exchanging information with the other party, or completing a collision report.

[MikeEMT609]

It may or may not show the status. It depends if the DMV has been notified at the time the inquiry was run. Even then, if you do not have proof of insurance (a card), we cannot get your insurance company and policy number. You need to have the card with you not only in the event you might get pulled over, but in the event you are involved in a collision as well. That is, after all, part of exchanging information with the other party, or completing a collision report.

Thanks for the information-
I always carry a current insurance card in my car at all time (it's kept w/my registration card and manuals for the car).
I know that in the event of a stop you have to present the license/registration/insurance, and in the event of a collision you have to exchange that information w/ the other driver.

[xmas]

does the proof of insurance also have to have the date on it just the policy number and company?:confused:

[SB 405]

does the proof of insurance also have to have the date on it just the policy number and company?:confused:


I don't think it would do any good to show an officer something w/o the dates of coverage. No dates,no proof IMO