In recent years, obtaining or renewing automobile liability insurance has been increasingly challenging and expensive. Whether a driver has ever been involved in a collision, in any capacity, can interfere with a person’s eligibility to receive insurance coverage, in addition to the rising cost of insurance premiums. One facing difficulties obtaining insurance may wonder if automobile insurance is even worth purchasing. The logic might lead one to believe that extremely cautious driving will eliminate the need to even have liability insurance. However, as we all know – accidents happen and it is sometimes someone else’s fault. What happens to a plaintiff if they do not have liability insurance?
The California Department of Motor Vehicles requires that every owner and driver of a motor vehicle have proof of financial responsibility. (See California DMV – Financial Responsibility). This rule was passed by the voters of the State of California in Proposition 213 and codified in California Civil Code Section 3333.4.
Therefore, it is a financial responsibility of every owner and operator of a vehicle to establish that at all times, financial responsibility exists through liability insurance or its functional equivalent. An owner or operator who fails to comply with these laws is generally barred by Proposition 213 (Civil Code Section 3333.4) from recovering noneconomic damages in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident. Proposition 213 known as the Professional Responsibility Act of 1996 is intended to “punish and deter scofflaws (i.e., drivers who do not obey the financial responsibility laws)” by precluding them from recovery of noneconomic damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident (Hodges vs. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.App.4th 109).
While most vehicle owners and operators typically comply with the financial responsibilities by purchasing insurance, there are also alternative ways for motorists to do so such as depositing $35,000 in cash with the DMV before operating a vehicle (Vehicle Code Section 16021).
The Intent of Civil Code Section 3333.4
As a remedial statute, Section 3333.4 is to be construed broadly to affect its purpose. One purpose is to limit the claims uninsured motorists could make against insurance policies maintained by responsible motorists (Hodges vs. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.App.4th 109).
Another purpose of Proposition 213 is to protect the public from uninsured motorists and ameliorate rising insurance premiums by encouraging motorists to obtain insurance (Chude vs. Jack-in-the-Box (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 437 and Yoshioka vs. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 972).
To allow a plaintiff to recover noneconomic damages even though he or she has disregarded the law would remove the incentive to require all drivers of motor vehicles to obtain sufficient insurance; Proposition 213 protects against this.
Finally, Proposition 213 was intended to ensure that those drivers on the roads without sufficient security do not profit from drivers who choose to comply with the law (Day vs. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.App.4th 268).
Case Application
Based upon all of the above in a motor vehicle accident, plaintiff must provide proof that they had insurance or had deposited the $35,000 bond with the DMV prior to operating or registering their vehicle. Should they fail to do so, affirmative defenses under both Civil Code Section 3333.4 and Insurance Code Section 11580.2 should be raised in an Answer to the Complaint filed by an uninsured plaintiff.
The first necessary element in applying Proposition 213 is that the damages at issue must arise out of “operation or use of a motor vehicle” (Civil Code Section 3333.4(a)). The opening paragraph of subdivision (a) does not apply the “operation or use” requirement to the uninsured vehicle. The plain language of the statute simply requires that (1) the injury arise out of the operation or use of at least one motor vehicle and (2) the uninsured motor vehicle or vehicle driven by an uninsured operator must be “involved” in the incident (Civil Code Section 3333.4(a)(2)(3)).
The court in Cabral vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (1988) 66 Cal.App.4th 907 addressed the meaning of the relevant terms in Civil Code Section 3333.4. The Court noted that the term “operate” means to “cause to function” and “use” means “to employ, put into action or service or utilize.” The court rejected the contention that operation or use required that the vehicle be moving or running (Id. at 913-914).
However, simply demonstrating that damages arose out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle is simply the first step in applying the affirmative defenses addressed above. Before plaintiff’s recovery may be limited by Proposition 213, one of three parts of Civil Code Section 3333.4(a) must also be satisfied. The two relevant subparts are subdivisions (a)(2) (the ownership exclusion) and (a)(3) (the operator exclusion). Both subparts are to be pleaded in the affirmative defenses. If either subpart is satisfied, the defendant is entitled to rely upon Proposition 213.
The ownership exclusion precludes noneconomic damages where “the injured person was the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in an accident (Civil Code Section 3333.4(a)(2)). The ownership exclusion also precludes noneconomic damages where the injured person was the operator of a vehicle involved in the accident and the operator cannot establish his or her financial responsibility (Civil Code Section 3333.4(a)(3)). If a plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle without sufficient responsibility, he or she is barred from recovery for noneconomic damages pursuant to Section 3333.4(a)(3)).
Compliance with Proposition 213 (Civil Code Section 3333.4) is a necessity for all of the driving public in the State of California. If your plaintiff is not insured and/or cannot prove financial responsibility by the deposit of $35,000 cash with the DMV, raise the affirmative defenses discussed above and, if necessary, file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of the issue as to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.
About the Author
Angela Rossi is an experienced attorney who has over three decades of solid expertise practicing law. She is an accomplished litigator both in and out of the courtroom, with experience that includes countless trials and binding arbitrations. Her law practice includes products liability, premises liability, security guard law, construction defect, trucking company defense, and personal injury. In her construction defect practice, Ms. Rossi is highly skilled in defending organizations of all sizes, from small subcontractors to general contractors and large developers. She has also been a volunteer arbitrator through the Los Angeles Superior Court.
