Tennessee Senate Bill SB1667

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Engrossed: 4/22/26
• Enrolled: 4/30/26
• Passed: 5/22/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 55 and Title 56, relative to motor vehicle financial responsibility.

Summary

SB1667 revises Tennessee’s motor vehicle financial responsibility and uninsured motorist verification laws, with a broad focus on insurance compliance, registration processing, and penalties for uninsured vehicles. The bill requires proof of financial responsibility before initial vehicle registration can be processed, allows proof to be shown in paper or electronic form, and requires registration notices to remind owners and operators that they must carry proof of insurance. It also sets a sunset date of June 30, 2029 for the new registration-proof requirement. The bill substantially increases penalties for uninsured vehicles and repeated noncompliance. It raises the initial coverage failure fee from $25 to $500, the continued coverage failure fee from $100 to $1,000, and creates a $1,500 repeated coverage failure fee for vehicles that receive another notice within three years. It also authorizes suspension or revocation of registration for repeated noncompliance and directs how fee revenue is split among county clerks, the Department of Safety, and the uninsured motorist identification restricted fund. In addition, it tightens renewal processing rules when a notice has already been issued and requires public notice of the changes.

Impact

SB1667 would amend multiple sections of Tennessee Code Annotated in Titles 29, 55, and 56. In Title 55, it changes vehicle registration and insurance-verification procedures, expands insurer reporting obligations by requiring weekly full-book-of-business submissions or unknown-carrier responses, deletes one existing section, and adds a temporary registration-proof requirement. In Title 29, it creates a new limitation on noneconomic damages in certain motor-vehicle injury or death cases when the plaintiff is the uninsured owner or lessee of the involved vehicle and has received repeated noncompliance notices, and it requires special verdict findings on disputed insurance-compliance issues. In Title 56, it adds a data-call requirement for insurers regarding policies cancelled within 60 days of issuance. The bill also authorizes highway message-board outreach by the Department of Transportation.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support among lawmakers, as reflected by unanimous passage in the Transportation and Safety Committee and a strong majority vote in the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee, followed by floor passage. The vote margins suggest the measure was broadly accepted, though not without some opposition on the floor. Overall, the discussion and voting history indicate support for stronger insurance enforcement and registration compliance measures.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely the bill’s steep fee increases, the new registration suspension/revocation consequences, and the civil-liability provision limiting noneconomic damages for certain uninsured vehicle owners or lessees. Those provisions shift costs and legal exposure onto uninsured motorists and may be viewed as punitive by critics, while supporters likely see them as necessary deterrents to uninsured driving and as a way to improve compliance. The insurer reporting requirements and county clerk fee allocations may also raise administrative concerns, but the most significant controversy centers on the damages cap and the expanded enforcement penalties.