Most people are terribly underinsured. Although I'm no fan of government controls, this law will make sure that those who have insurance have some sort of minimum requirement. There will always be those who don't have insurance and drive anyway, you can't stop that. Personally I think that anyone with less that $1 million in liability is underinsured.

westorbust, based on the info you posted, if correct, you would be absolutely right. I can't think of any other reason why this law would be enacted, in fact, our state govt has said they need more money... This would be a good way to do it. On the backs of people who can barely afford it and are already stressing out. More pushing? Great, I can't wait to get pulled over for a cop just running my plates and then getting a ticket I can't afford and then losing my DL as a result. Then I have to pay re-instatement fees, fines, insurance, all because there are people who CAN'T drive and the state is making a buck off of it.

If the current percentage of uninsured motorists (15%) in WI is the same as in states with similar laws enacted, AND insurance agents like the one quoted in the above story don't think it will change anything, why do we need this law?

I'm assuming it's to boost states revenues.

We don't need more laws, just more common sense.

Prevention, you hit the target! BULLSEYE!!! Thank you.

I'm not a fan of the law either. Actually, would you rather replace ALL the costs out of your own pocket in an accident... INCLUDING DEATH, or $1000 a year for car insurance? Even if you have horrible rates and pay $200 a month, that's still cheaper than the alternative of replace your vehicle, the other vehicle, and loss of life.

can we somehow force the deer to buy insurance also? I've about had it with them varmits..

copperguy: Thanks for the clarifier. I wasn't aware that the secondary enforcement provision had been in the original law. So now it's a question of how long this law will be on the books before IT changes too.
Ncc1701 already sued for the $500 deductible , and hasn't gotten the money. Would the uninsured motorist have had the $500 to pay the fine a year ago right after the accident? Wisconsin already has provisions for revoking your driver's license if you are required to file an SR-22 (proof of financial responsibility) due to a previous incident. Then it's not a $500 fine, it's Operating After Revocation every time you get caught. Insurance companies already file an SR-22 with the State if required, so why not extend it to all drivers? No insurance means License Revoked until proof of insurance is refiled. After 4 or 5 OAR tickets at least the mandatory jail time would keep them off the roads.

Fool, what is the name your company? My were upped 10%.

My Rates went DOWN... more people insured means more people paying in, means less uninsured/underinsured. Means im not paying for those who are not. if your rates went up, and your not attached to your agent ( mine is a great agent who helps me keep track of my business needs ) SHOP AROUND... my Econ Prof called it "voting with your feet".. Goverment Oversite keeps insurance companies in check. if you have high rates because of your past behavior.. maybe you should buy a bicycle

typo... you only need $15,000 for property damage. http://www.channel3000.com/automotive/23... or http://oci.wi.gov/faq/auto.htm

Interesting stories. As for the cost of my auto insurance, it dropped about 9% this year.

Interesting link...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Ins...

Thanks nanny! Without you to tell me how to live every aspect of my life, I might have learned from my mistakes and ended up capable of making my own decisions! Dodged a bullet there!

Sorry to hear that, ncc. I know, it is small claims and I wish you luck. I got a quote from Progressive today and it is quite decent. 56.00 a month for 6 months. Thats not bad, I have an older car, 1998 LeSabre.

Sorry RAF, I have read the law but I have also heard a lot about DL fraud so I wasn't sure what to believe on DL being enough.
.
If DL is enough I remain infavor of the law.

"So, in Wisconsin, if I am stopped and simply say I have insurance that is not enough. I must produce my documentation or pay a small fine. How come this is reasonable but asking someone stopped for a suspected violation to produce documentation that they are in the country legaly is not?"

Billy, Thanks for posting this, you read my mind.

chevytech: The seat belt law was changed in the legislature last year. Prior to that, the law specifically stated that seatbelt usage for adults was a secondary enforcement issue (not in those exact words, but it was there nonetheless).

Whythink said " just scares me that some American Citizens will be asked for proof of citizenship in Arizona but others will not. Sounds like racial profiling/discrimination/NOT EQUAL to me. "
-
If you read the law you would know that a drivers license and/or state identification issued in Arizona is proof of citizenship. Therefor when asked for identification, as happens for all police involvement, all citizens ARE ALREADY asked for proof of citizenship...so your fear is overblown.

Leaving your head in the sand about the law is ignorant.

The mandatory insurance law is a huge bureaucratic boondoggle which will only cause insurance rates to rise and will have little effect on the number of insured drivers. It's hard to believe the legislature would be sucked into such nonsense. As usual, now we have it and we must live with it.

whythink: I was around over 20 years ago when the mandatory seatbelt law was enacted. Back then they told us this would be secondary enforcement only, that you would NEVER be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, so the law passed. Of course, that was never in the actual law, and now, sure enough, law enforcement can pull you over if they see you driving without a seatbelt.
As Copperguy pointed out, your license plate is tied to the specific VIN of a vehicle. This VIN is tied to the insurance policy. All it will take is one hook in the DMV database to tie those two records together, and law enforcement will be able to see if your vehicle is insured just by running your license plate.
With the current (ongoing?) budget shortages, I don't think it will be very long before we start seeing people pulled over for not having insurance. Of course, if you don't own the car, it's not your violation, but that requires making sure the papers for the vehicle and your personal papers are all in order to prove your innocence.
So, remember: Make sure you have your Papers! Police vill demand to see your Papers! If you do not haff your Papers, You vill be taken to Police Headquarters!
Didn't half a million people die in the Mid-1940's in Europe and the Pacific to keep that kind of thing from happening to Americans?

I actually like the law (insurance) as well. No need for a seperate document proving status if you limit drivers licenses to citizens and those in the country legaly. Producing your license would then establish citizenship.

Just heard that this will be a part of "secondary enforcement" NBC 15 News. Most likely won't be asked to prove insurance if pulled over but you BETTER be able to prove insurance if in an accident.
.
Starting to reevaluate my opinion of Arizona law. It just scares me that some American Citizens will be asked for proof of citizenship in Arizona but others will not. Sounds like racial profiling/discrimination/NOT EQUAL to me.
.
BTW, I love this law. Recent accident with uninsured motorist...very frustrating.

I believe the argument would be pretty simple...Police will ask EVERYONE the same question regarding proof of insurance
.
Meanwhile, the day I am asked for proof of citizenship beyond a DL, I would be shocked. A Hispanic in Arizona wouldn't be shocked (legal or illegal).
.
Not looking to start that debate again but I believe that is the difference. Perhaps the easy answer is a Federal law requiring all citizens to carry proof...Passport, SS Card or Birth Certificate in addition to the already "required" DL.
.
When stopped cops will ask to see proof of DL, Insurance and Citizenship from EVERYONE, man women, black white brown, etc...

"The citation for failure to carry insurance documents is $10."

So, in Wisconsin, if I am stopped and simply say I have insurance that is not enough. I must produce my documentation or pay a small fine. How come this is reasonable but asking someone stopped for a suspected violation to produce documentation that they are in the country legaly is not?

The newer cars have a barcode along with the VIN number behind the windshield.

Rather than a simple fine, Wisconsin should follow other states and suspend the driver's license of anyone who has a crash or receives a citation while driving without insurance.

I haven't yet read the new law, but I'm going to now.

I have more than adequate insurance, my 17 yr old son was sitting at a stop light on Milton Avenue and a woman hit him from behind, did not even brake, was on a cell phone. She had no insurance...guess what now I have to go through all kinds of garbage because it was my car he was driving. My insurance company had to try to go after this woman who didnt even have the sense to have liability on her late model Taurus. As nice as that car was you would think she could afford at least liability. Now we suffer for her lack of responsibility. Driving a car is a privilege not a right, I am all for everyone being required to have insurance. Not sure of the language in this law so I cannot say whether or not I agree with the verbage but I do agree with the concept.

packolies: See the third requirement listed in the article: Uninsured and underinsured coverage is required.

Matt: No need for a barcode. They already have a VIN (vehicle identification number) which is tied to the license plate.

As for routine stops to check for insurance, that sort of goes against the requirement of having reasonable suspicion before infringing one's liberties with a traffic stop.

Ncc, you can still sue someone. Dini, I know where you are coming from. How do you decide between eating and driving? The way the economy is even middle class can't make it. JMO

Driving is a privilege, Matt? That's why society is set up for drivers? I'm not able to walk more than half a block. I assure you I cannot walk the mile and a half to the nearest (too-expensive) grocer and haul my food home with me. Those damned poor people sure are an awful inconvenience.

Absolutely agree everyone should be insured. Would love to know how to pay for it since, this being the 31st of the month, the fridge and pantry are empty and we are again eating potatoes. I'm no low-life. I'm just disabled and broke.

I like this law, I agree with the basic premise that cookiedough has. The state and insurance companies need to have an database that they can both access and update daily. A simple barcode on the windshield that an officer scans would be easy enough. I think the state can come up with an app for that.

There is no reason for rates to go up. Mine didn't. Insurance companies that did this before the law went into effect and before this law can be proven to cost insurers more, are gouging. No different than certain gas stations after 911.

Everyone should have the state mandated minimums. It is common sense. If you can't afford insurance, don't drive. Why should it be everyone else that has to worry about those who choose not to be responsible.

I think this is a good law, I think the verification system needs to be tied to the vehicle, with cooperation between the state and insurers.

Driving is a privilege, and minimum liability insurance should not be elective.

Wisconsin auto premiums are some of the lowest in the nation. I properly insure myself against those that do not insure themselves. I'm not a fan of this law.

And as for healthcare, we are all entitled to healthcare! Maybe if we wouldn't give it to illegals, we could afford to provide nationwide healthcare to all AMERICANS!

And I'm sure you would like to see all of that happen Bond. A bit tired of those who seem to pull for the failure of America.

Oh, I believe we all should have insurance. But I am getting sick and tired of paying for the uninsured and underinsured. Our premiums should not go up to accomodate them. Their should be stricter penalties for those driving without insurance. Throw them in jail and take away their vehicles. Let the police be able to do check stops to make sure people are carrying insurance.

Wait until Obama Care kicks in, If YOU can't afford health care, the government will fine you for not having it. My question is if you can't afford it how are you going to pay the fine? Obama Care Side effects includes headaches, delayed treatments, sky rocketing taxes and premature death.

The guy that crossed the center-line and killed Cal Janish last week didn't have insurance.

Thank you, I was just curious. Have a good Memorial Day! Does anyone know if there is a parade today?

Well, justme46, if it doesn't go into the pockets of the CEO's then it goes to claims.

beeferer, the law of supply and demand has gone beyond sensibilty.

doradew, I am so sorry to hear this. I feel for your family. It is sad when this happens. I don't understand something. People like my mom and dad who have passed, paid out their noses their whole life for full coverage and NEVER had an acccident. Where does this money go? Same with my hubby now, he is much older than me and has paid all his life and nothing has ever happened, thank God, but still where does all the money go? Just asking.

Isn't it just wrong that the insurance companies raise their rates because of a new law that increases their business? Now they'll have more money coming in, so what do they do? Are they saying that the more people they insure, the more it costs them to be in business? Can anyone explain this to me? We all know that people with poor driving records pay dearly for insurance. Maybe it has something to do with Wisconsin's drunken driving reputation.

How come premiums have gone up but not the limits? These numbers are the same from 20 years ago. If you are sued for more than the limits, you will have to pay the difference if you lose.

This law isn't tough enough. As the insurance rep in the article stated, a $500 deterrent isn't enough. My next door neighbor had her car seriously smashed up by a unlicensed/uninsured driver. From what she had said he just stood there after the accident shaking his head saying "No Ingles" while they were trying to ask him questions.....I can't remember if she had collision or had to pay for it out of pocket, but this woman or her insurer was left covering the bill for that one. You can't seriously tell me that that guy that hit her is going to run and get insurance after this law goes into effect. The cops should immediately impound any car that is found on the road w/o insurance.....

Hoo boy, at some point, if employment doesn't come soon, I'll have to decide if I should operate without it or not. If I don't operate/drive, I'll never be able to afford it. But if I cannot pay such a fine, I'll be a criminal. Hmm. It's a given that one takes a chance every time they drive anywhere, and common sense says to drive as if everyone else is an idiot that might do anything at anytime. There's no assurance the trip will be uneventful. This isn't about saving lives, it's about monetary compensation. I'm not sure if I like this law, myself, but obviously it's important enough to pass and enforce upon us. It's just awefully detrimental to my plans of making a living. IMO.

Just one more thought...perhaps people should have to prove they have insurance to get their vehicle license renewed each year. That would do more than the $500.00 fine alone.

My wife was recently hit by an elderly gentleman who had good insurance. The accident caused a spinal cord injury that took away her ability to walk. The medical costs alone are over $400,000. The new insurance limits are not high enough to safeguard your family. Buy more insurance and do not put your family or others at risk by failing to get insurance. With a good driving record, the cost of increasing your coverage to a million dollars instead of the minimums coverage is small.

I was sitting still with my brakes on and the left hand turn signal on waiting for oncoming traffic to clear when the uninsured idiot slammed into the rear end of my car. The loss was under $1,000.00 so not only did he not have to pay for my car, but I could not touch his license because of the dollar amt. Looked him up on CCAP the other day, the loser put his home in foreclosure and this is 10 yrs later. Guess my opinion is they are not going to get ins. just cuz it's the law. Seems they think they are above the law cuz the law doesn't do anything to them. Just my opinion.

thank god were finally smarting up! it's about time we get those dangerous uninsured drivers off the road, how many time have we seen or heard of a person slamming into another person car, hurting him, totaling out his car and walking away Scott free...thanks for making them ACCOUNTABLE for actions...it's sure to bring them low life cheap insurance company's out of the wood in search of these drivers,...until they have to pay so much out of there pockets that they be asking for a BAILOUT ...LOL

RetiredAirForce, I'm not an insurance expert, but uninsured and under insured motorists insurance covers only personal injury and yes, most policies I believe had that as a standard. However, for damage to your vehicle from an uninsured driver would have to come from your collision insurance so you have needed that type of coverage. I found this out the hard way. I got rear ended by an uninsured driver and it totaled my car. It was a total loss for me because I was too cheap to carry collision at the time.

Insurance companies had products to protect you from uninsured and under insured motorists already...

This is another way to allow the insurance companies to make more money. One hand feeds the other.

Oh no! Someone injured in an accident may be able to recover medical costs from the other party! This, my friends, is how liberty dies. *starts up anthem, waves tiny flag*

The insurance stays with the vehicle, not the driver. WI has just joined the majority of states with mandatory insurance. WI was a "financial responsibility" state you did not need to have insurance as long as you could show financial responsibility. This basically meant if you got into an accident you would have to pay for the damages out of your own pocket. I had seen paycheck garnishments, if you fail to pay you could be fined, ordered to secure a guarantee bond and obtain high risk SR12 insurance. Here in GA we have mandatory insurance. It is linked to the vehicle tag or license plate. If the insurance lapses the ins. co. informs the state, the state informs you that your tag is suspended. Should you get pulled over it is immediate arrest and impound of the vehicle. BTW Insurance companies will still compete for your business. The WI law seems a little weak.

cookiedough: Your suggestion sounds good on first blush. There are reasons it's not done that way. Your focus is too narrow.

Having a driver's license allows one the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. It does not require you to do so, nor does it mean you are going to. For instance, think of all the Wisconsinites who are currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or many other foreign countries. They have no need for insurance, because they are not driving in Wisconsin. Yet, they can still have WI DLs.

To take that a step further, consider a service member who comes home on leave. I am insured and my vehicle is insured. If I allow such a person to drive my vehicle, s/he is covered by my insurance.

There are other examples, but this one should serve to illustrate the situation.

More payoffs to lawyers by lawyers...

It pays to shop around. You should really do it every year.

commonunity, did you bother to shop around? Sounds like your insurer is screwing you, or you had some change in status that caused it.

I also carry the minimums (plus more) and my rates increased as well. When I questioned the insurance company about my monthly rate increase and asked if there was anything I could do to lower my rates since I'm unemployed and have had no accidents or tickets of any sort since receiving my license 12 years ago, I was told I basically had to suck it up and the rates increased because of the new law taking effect. I'm not happy about it, but what else can I do?

This new law is B.S.
If the state of WI did it right, the DOT would cross reference everyone in their system and demand every single WI driver who has a license make it mandated that they have proof of insurance to everyone who has a driver's license. It can be done and should be done and is a simple way to MAKE everyone carry the minimum liability they should be required to have to have the priviledge to drive a vehicle period! Heck, if they cannot afford minimum limits, pull their license period until proof of insurance is obtained. If the driver who then decides to cancel their insurance a week later lets say, that insurance company should be required to file with DOT that the person who cancelled insurance does not have insurance and make it the responsibility of the DOT to request new insurance period. Too many idiots on the road causing accidents with no insurance that should not be allowed to share the roads with insured drivers period!

I had already met the state mandated minimums, and my rates increased about $75.00 a month. I dumped the meducal expense coverage on my vehicles and saved my self $20.00 a month, but I am still paying extra from what I was before this law. Seems Doyle scratched the backs of his lobby with this law. I was previously under the impression that if everyone was required to carry insurance on their car. My insurance rates would decrease, rather than increase. Weird how that works.