Uninsured Motorist Coverage; minimum required under motor vehicle liability policies for a individual convicted of driving under the influence or reckless driving; increase
Summary
SB 121 increases the minimum motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required for people convicted of driving under the influence in Georgia. For a first DUI conviction, the bill requires higher minimum bodily injury, death, and property damage coverage than the general state minimums; for a second or subsequent DUI conviction, it requires even higher limits. The bill applies to DUI convictions under Georgia law or equivalent offenses in other states.
The bill also requires affected drivers to maintain the increased coverage continuously for three years from the date of conviction. In addition, it requires them to carry proof of that coverage while operating a motor vehicle, and allows that proof to be shown in paper or electronic form, including on a mobile device. The bill defines “conviction” broadly to include a guilty verdict, guilty plea, or nolo contendere plea, and states that these special coverage requirements replace the ordinary minimum liability limits otherwise required under Georgia insurance law for these drivers.
Impact
SB 121 amends Title 33 and Title 40 of the Georgia Code by creating a new insurance requirement for DUI offenders and adding a corresponding proof-of-insurance requirement for drivers subject to the higher limits. It changes the minimum liability coverage applicable to this class of drivers, superseding the standard minimums in Code Section 33-7-11 for those covered by the new section, and it ties compliance to a three-year post-conviction period. The bill affects convicted DUI drivers, insurers, and law enforcement or other officials who may check proof of insurance during vehicle operation.
Sentiment
The voting record suggests the bill had broad bipartisan support and was generally viewed favorably. It passed the Senate 53-2, passed the House 157-11, and then the Senate agreed to the House substitute 51-2. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate substantial opposition beyond the small number of dissenting votes.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether DUI offenders should face substantially higher insurance minimums than other drivers, especially for repeat offenses. Opponents may have objected to the increased financial burden on convicted drivers or to the policy of using insurance requirements as an additional penalty. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a public-safety and accountability tool that better protects victims and ensures higher financial responsibility from high-risk drivers. The narrow dissent in both chambers indicates limited but present disagreement over the scope and severity of the new requirements.