Diabetes Attorney- Kriss Halpern

How to Change Unfair Auto Insurance Hikes!

The current policy of the California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") to end a suspension that occurs after a Driver Medical Evaluation Form (“DME”) is submitted late by a driver's physician provides auto insurance carriers with an excuse to increase rates of licensees with diabetes unfairly. If the DMV would set aside the suspension after submission of an acceptable DME instead of merely ending the suspension, then insurance carriers would have no legal basis to increase rates in these circumstances. This is because when the DMV sets aside a license suspension the law treats the suspension as if it never occurred. But when the suspension is merely ended, it remains on the driver's record.

California Insurance Code §661(a) (2) allows an auto insurance carrier to increase a policy holder’s rates whenever a driver’s license is suspended.

California Vehicle Code §13801 allows the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") to order a re-examination of a licensed driver with 10 days’s written notice and allows the DMV to require submission of a Driver Medical Evaluation Form (“DME”) by the driver's physician.

A common problem is that the driver is sometimes unable to submit the DME within the time limit set. Indeed, whether the licensee is given 10 days or even 30 days, many persons are unable to schedule a medical appointment and have a physician fill out the DME and submit it to the DMV within the time allowed. When that happens, the current policy of the DMV is to suspend a driver’s license for failure to submit to re-examination.

The statute does not state whether the suspension should be set aside or simply ended once an acceptable DME is received by the Department. Current DMV policy appears to be that the suspension is ended once an acceptable DME is received. However, if the policy were changed so that such suspensions are set aside instead of merely ended, Insurance Code §661(a) (2) would no longer apply in these instances and insurance carriers would be prohibited from increasing rates as a result of what is merely a delay in submission of a form that results in no harm to the public, no risk of driver safety, and no increased risk for the insurance carrier once the DME is reviewed and the suspension is set aside.

Such a policy would be fairer even in those instances where the driver ignores or otherwise fails to respond to the notice of re-examination because it would continue the current practice of suspension for failure to submit the DME as required but avoid the unintended harm of an unfair and baseless increase in auto insurance rates once the DME is submitted and the DMV has determined that no driving safety risk exists. Under such circumstances, whatever the reason for the delayed receipt of a DME, the public is protected from possibly unsafe drivers while licensees with significant medical issues who are able to demonstrate that they are not unsafe drivers are protected from unfair and baseless insurance rate increases.

In the case of a client I represented named Kenny Cox, the DMV advised that the driver’s physician submitted the DME by fax one day after it was due on December 12, 2005. [The office of the driver’s physician has advised that the form was timely submitted on the day it was due. In addition, the seventeen year old driver’s mother had called the DMV prior to the due date to request a brief extension as authorized on the notice sent by the DMV requiring submission of the Medical Evaluation form. (The DMV notice states, “[i]f you expect a delay in having your doctor complete these forms, please notify this office immediately.”) These facts provide evidence of why the suspension was unfair in the case of Kenny Cox, but the basic issue is the same for any driver whose license is suspended because a Medical Evaluation form is not timely submitted, even where the underlying suspension was clearly proper. The point is that once the Medical Evaluation form is submitted and the DMV is able to determine that the driver poses no unacceptable safety risk, then the suspension should be set aside and not merely ended.]

As soon as the DMV reviewed the form on December 13, 2005 it was able to determine that the driver could drive safely and the suspension was ended by notice on January 13, 2006. However, because the suspension had already occurred, the driver’s rates were more than doubled by his insurance carrier and the carrier refused to reconsider its policy change even after the suspension was ended. This plainly unfair situation continued while the driver and I spent months trying to have the insurer reinstate the policy at its prior rates and the DMV set aside the suspension instead of merely ending it. The suspension was finally set aside only after the intervention of a DMV office director on October 6, 2006 – nearly one year after the original suspension because a DME may have been faxed one day late by the licensee’s physician. The situation here was obviously unfair to this driver and amounted to an imposition of an exorbitant and unwarranted rate increase. The same situation apparently occurs with some frequency as I was advised both by receptionists with the Driver Safety Office in San Diego, as well as the Department of Insurance in Sacramento, all of whom acknowledged that they did not know how to cure the problem, that they had repeatedly received calls from drivers in similar situations, and realized that the drivers were unfairly treated by insurers but that they were powerless to resolve the problem.

The medical form sent to the DMV in the Cox matter confirmed that Kenny Cox is able to drive safely and as a result the suspension was ended soon after it was ordered. However, despite the physician’s affirmation that his patient could drive safely and despite the fact that the driver never had a ticket, an accident, or any driving safety issue whatsoever, his auto insurance carrier was still able to increase his rates legally as a result of the brief suspension and was unwilling even to reconsider its obviously unfair action. That was grossly unfair to this driver and was easily resolved when the suspension was later set aside. As soon as the suspension was set aside and the driver received notification, the set aside order was mailed to the insurance carrier and the prior insurance policy was put back into effect at the same rate that was in effect before the suspension. [The office of the driver’s physician has advised that the form was timely submitted on the day it was due. In addition, the seventeen year old driver’s mother had called the DMV prior to the due date to request a brief extension as authorized on the notice sent by the DMV requiring submission of the Medical Evaluation form. (The DMV notice states, “[i]f you expect a delay in having your doctor complete these forms, please notify this office immediately.”) These facts provide evidence of why the suspension was unfair in the case of Kenny Cox, but the basic issue is the same for any driver whose license is suspended because a Medical Evaluation form is not timely submitted, even where the underlying suspension was clearly proper. The point is that once the Medical Evaluation form is submitted and the DMV is able to determine that the driver poses no unacceptable safety risk, then the suspension should be set aside and not merely ended.]

The DMV’s current policy is to suspend the license of drivers whose physicians do not provide a completed DME to a requesting Driver Safety Office within ten to twenty five days. The problem, of course, is that the well-documented time constraints and pressures on physicians often make it impossible for them to complete the forms in the time limit imposed. Many drivers cannot even get an appointment from a physician within ten days, let alone a five page form filled out (for which, by the way, doctors are not usually paid). As a result, it is inevitable that suspensions will occur even where drivers are not safety risks.

While the suspension of a license is not necessarily an inappropriate response by the DMV under such circumstances – given that the driver may in fact be unsafe and the DMV may be obliged to take action promptly when medical information is not provided and safe driving ability confirmed – the problem is that the present response of the DMV once the requisite medical information has been provided leads to serious and unfair consequences because it gives insurance carriers an excuse to raise rates without justification and in ways that are plainly discriminatory to large sections of the population – those with significant health concerns.

The solution to the problem is easy and requires no change in law or statute, but a simple change in the handling of this situation by the DMV through an administrative procedure. Instead of ending the suspension, the DMV should have the suspension set aside once a sufficient DME is provided. By changing to this policy, a driver would be suspended until the DME is provided so that potentially unsafe drivers are off the road. But once a DME is submitted that is deemed acceptable by the DMV, the suspension would be set aside so that an increase in insurance rates is not allowed pursuant to Insurance Code §661(a) (2).

Here is a form I drafted for submission to the DMV to request a change in their policy to avoid unfair auto insurance increases for safe drivers:

If you print out the form, sign it and fax or mail it to me with the signatures of others concerned about solving this problem, I will submit it to the DMV for their assistance in ending this practice.

Request for a Change in Regulations by the California DMV



				How to Change Unfair Auto Insurance Hikes! The current policy of the California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") to end a suspension that occurs after a Driver Medical Evaluation Form (“DME”) is submitted late by a driver's physician provides auto insurance carriers with an excuse to increase rates of licensees with diabetes unfairly. If the DMV would set aside the suspension after submission of an acceptable DME instead of merely ending the suspension, then insurance carriers would have no legal basis to increase rates in these circumstances. This is because when the DMV sets aside a license suspension the law treats the suspension as if it never occurred. But when the suspension is merely ended, it remains on the driver's record. California Insurance Code §661(a) (2) allows an auto insurance carrier to increase a policy holder’s rates whenever a driver’s license is suspended. California Vehicle Code §13801 allows the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") to order a re-examination of a licensed driver with 10 days’s written notice and allows the DMV to require submission of a Driver Medical Evaluation Form (“DME”) by the driver's physician. A common problem is that the driver is sometimes unable to submit the DME within the time limit set. Indeed, whether the licensee is given 10 days or even 30 days, many persons are unable to schedule a medical appointment and have a physician fill out the DME and submit it to the DMV within the time allowed. When that happens, the current policy of the DMV is to suspend a driver’s license for failure to submit to re-examination. The statute does not state whether the suspension should be set aside or simply ended once an acceptable DME is received by the Department. Current DMV policy appears to be that the suspension is ended once an acceptable DME is received. However, if the policy were changed so that such suspensions are set aside instead of merely ended, Insurance Code §661(a) (2) would no longer apply in these instances and insurance carriers would be prohibited from increasing rates as a result of what is merely a delay in submission of a form that results in no harm to the public, no risk of driver safety, and no increased risk for the insurance carrier once the DME is reviewed and the suspension is set aside. Such a policy would be fairer even in those instances where the driver ignores or otherwise fails to respond to the notice of re-examination because it would continue the current practice of suspension for failure to submit the DME as required but avoid the unintended harm of an unfair and baseless increase in auto insurance rates once the DME is submitted and the DMV has determined that no driving safety risk exists. Under such circumstances, whatever the reason for the delayed receipt of a DME, the public is protected from possibly unsafe drivers while licensees with significant medical issues who are able to demonstrate that they are not unsafe drivers are protected from unfair and baseless insurance rate increases. In the case of a client I represented named Kenny Cox, the DMV advised that the driver’s physician submitted the DME by fax one day after it was due on December 12, 2005. [The office of the driver’s physician has advised that the form was timely submitted on the day it was due. In addition, the seventeen year old driver’s mother had called the DMV prior to the due date to request a brief extension as authorized on the notice sent by the DMV requiring submission of the Medical Evaluation form. (The DMV notice states, “[i]f you expect a delay in having your doctor complete these forms, please notify this office immediately.”) These facts provide evidence of why the suspension was unfair in the case of Kenny Cox, but the basic issue is the same for any driver whose license is suspended because a Medical Evaluation form is not timely submitted, even where the underlying suspension was clearly proper. The point is that once the Medical Evaluation form is submitted and the DMV is able to determine that the driver poses no unacceptable safety risk, then the suspension should be set aside and not merely ended.] As soon as the DMV reviewed the form on December 13, 2005 it was able to determine that the driver could drive safely and the suspension was ended by notice on January 13, 2006. However, because the suspension had already occurred, the driver’s rates were more than doubled by his insurance carrier and the carrier refused to reconsider its policy change even after the suspension was ended. This plainly unfair situation continued while the driver and I spent months trying to have the insurer reinstate the policy at its prior rates and the DMV set aside the suspension instead of merely ending it. The suspension was finally set aside only after the intervention of a DMV office director on October 6, 2006 – nearly one year after the original suspension because a DME may have been faxed one day late by the licensee’s physician. The situation here was obviously unfair to this driver and amounted to an imposition of an exorbitant and unwarranted rate increase. The same situation apparently occurs with some frequency as I was advised both by receptionists with the Driver Safety Office in San Diego, as well as the Department of Insurance in Sacramento, all of whom acknowledged that they did not know how to cure the problem, that they had repeatedly received calls from drivers in similar situations, and realized that the drivers were unfairly treated by insurers but that they were powerless to resolve the problem. The medical form sent to the DMV in the Cox matter confirmed that Kenny Cox is able to drive safely and as a result the suspension was ended soon after it was ordered. However, despite the physician’s affirmation that his patient could drive safely and despite the fact that the driver never had a ticket, an accident, or any driving safety issue whatsoever, his auto insurance carrier was still able to increase his rates legally as a result of the brief suspension and was unwilling even to reconsider its obviously unfair action. That was grossly unfair to this driver and was easily resolved when the suspension was later set aside. As soon as the suspension was set aside and the driver received notification, the set aside order was mailed to the insurance carrier and the prior insurance policy was put back into effect at the same rate that was in effect before the suspension. [The office of the driver’s physician has advised that the form was timely submitted on the day it was due. In addition, the seventeen year old driver’s mother had called the DMV prior to the due date to request a brief extension as authorized on the notice sent by the DMV requiring submission of the Medical Evaluation form. (The DMV notice states, “[i]f you expect a delay in having your doctor complete these forms, please notify this office immediately.”) These facts provide evidence of why the suspension was unfair in the case of Kenny Cox, but the basic issue is the same for any driver whose license is suspended because a Medical Evaluation form is not timely submitted, even where the underlying suspension was clearly proper. The point is that once the Medical Evaluation form is submitted and the DMV is able to determine that the driver poses no unacceptable safety risk, then the suspension should be set aside and not merely ended.] The DMV’s current policy is to suspend the license of drivers whose physicians do not provide a completed DME to a requesting Driver Safety Office within ten to twenty five days. The problem, of course, is that the well-documented time constraints and pressures on physicians often make it impossible for them to complete the forms in the time limit imposed. Many drivers cannot even get an appointment from a physician within ten days, let alone a five page form filled out (for which, by the way, doctors are not usually paid). As a result, it is inevitable that suspensions will occur even where drivers are not safety risks. While the suspension of a license is not necessarily an inappropriate response by the DMV under such circumstances – given that the driver may in fact be unsafe and the DMV may be obliged to take action promptly when medical information is not provided and safe driving ability confirmed – the problem is that the present response of the DMV once the requisite medical information has been provided leads to serious and unfair consequences because it gives insurance carriers an excuse to raise rates without justification and in ways that are plainly discriminatory to large sections of the population – those with significant health concerns. The solution to the problem is easy and requires no change in law or statute, but a simple change in the handling of this situation by the DMV through an administrative procedure. Instead of ending the suspension, the DMV should have the suspension set aside once a sufficient DME is provided. By changing to this policy, a driver would be suspended until the DME is provided so that potentially unsafe drivers are off the road. But once a DME is submitted that is deemed acceptable by the DMV, the suspension would be set aside so that an increase in insurance rates is not allowed pursuant to Insurance Code §661(a) (2). Here is a form I drafted for submission to the DMV to request a change in their policy to avoid unfair auto insurance increases for safe drivers: If you print out the form, sign it and fax or mail it to me with the signatures of others concerned about solving this problem, I will submit it to the DMV for their assistance in ending this practice. Request for a Change in Regulations by the California DMV