366                                             VETOES

House Bill No. 62—Financial Responsibility in Motor Vehicle Laws

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 118 (b)
of Article 66 1/2 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edi-
tion), title "Motor Vehicles", subtitle "Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility", and to add new Section 124A to said Article and
sub-title of said Code, said new Section to follow immediately after
Section 124 thereof, relating to the length of time proof of
financial responsibility must be retained after said proof has been
required by law.

April 4, 1958.

Honorable John C. Luber
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In 1954, I approved legislation under which evidence of continuing
financial responsibility is permanently required of automobile opera-
tors as a condition precedent to restoration and continuance of their
operating privileges in the following situations:

(a)   The license has been revoked or suspended under the manda-
tory provisions of the motor vehicle law for such violations as man-
slaughter, drunken driving, failing to stop after an accident, and
operating on a revoked license.

(b)   The license has been suspended for failure of an uninsured
motorist to indemnify against or satisfy a claim arising from his
operation of a motor vehicle.

The 1954 law represented a sound step forward in protection of the
general public against drivers of demonstrated irresponsibility.
House Bill 62 of the 1958 session would free such drivers, after a five-
year period, from any obligation to carry liability insurance in order
to operate a motor vehicle. Its sponsors contend that excessive
charges for this form of compulsory insurance constitute an unrea-
sonable hardship and burden on many motorists.

My investigation discloses that an automobile driver whose license
is suspended for non-payment of a claim, but whose driving record
is otherwise similar to that of the average motor vehicle operator can
obtain the necessary insurance coverage from reputable companies
for a surcharge ranging from five to ten per cent. A different sit-
uation is presented as to motorists whose licenses have been man-
datorily revoked or suspended for serious criminal violations. This
group of drivers, in general, is obviously a very poor insurance risk.
A fire insurance company would probably deny coverage to a con-
victed arsonist, and one should expect a similar attitude by automobile
insurance companies toward drunken or hit-and-run drivers. Only
a relatively few companies will issue liability insurance for such risks.
Their premium charges, of necessity, are excessively high as com-
pared to the premium charges for normal drivers.

In my opinion, House Bill 62 is not a proper solution for any prob-
lems of hardship or unfairness which may occasionally arise under
the present law. The instant measure does not solve such situations,
but merely reduces the alleged hardship period. The heavy premium