I don't know how the laws are structured but there is a legitimate need for information to flow both ways between automotive insurance providers and State DMVs.
In many States, like GA, Insurers must report vehicle coverage changes to the State. If you get pulled over, Police Officers do not need to ask for insurance cards and can cite you for lapsed coverage.
At the same time, insurers want to know for liability purposes all drivers list at policy residences and when a driver's license is suspended.
Perhaps that information should be free with stipulations on how it can be used.
>At the same time, insurers want to know for liability purposes all drivers list at policy residences and when a driver's license is suspended.
What they want is irrelevant, and what they need is not-this. They'll find out someone's license is suspended when a coverage event happens, and that's it. Similarly, the police will know your license is suspended before insurance is in question.
There's simply no need to be proactive about getting that information because there's no risk to them for not knowing. Same with addresses and pretty much everything else not on an application for insurance at the outset.
There are numerous ways it can play out depending on the way each state structures their liability laws but imagine your child turns 16, you forget or "forget" to add them to your policy, and they are involved in a serious accident.
In some states the insurance company is on the hook because everyone at a residence is covered under the policy unless listed as excluded. The insurance company has no way to collect on any premium uprate that might have occurred had you listed them on the policy. And they might have recourse to come after you. And they could cancel your policy.
In other states the insurance company could retroactively cancel your policy for failure to list a driver leaving you with the liability from the accident.
Insurance companies use your driving record to determine premiums. Trucking companies use driving records to determine who they are going to hire/fire.
The article doesn't specify, but in those cases, there should be some form of informed consent.
I don't want Geico pulling my record unless I request a quote. They should be barred from doing so unless I explicitly grant permission.
I don't want Schneider International pulling my record unless I'm interviewing for a job. They should be barred from doing so unless I explicitly grant permission.
That's how it works here in the EU - if your job needs a record of (the lack of) any prior convictions, they can't just request/buy it from the police. You have to get the official form that lists that information, then give it to your employer.
It doesn't matter one lick if some company needs some bit of information. The government's role shouldn't be to spy on you on behalf of corporations.
Which is fine, but I was addressing the comment I was replying to, which basically discounted the entire concept of DMVs selling driving records to insurance companies and trucking companies as "fucked."
I mean, the fact that they're _selling_ it per se is also fucked -- the notion that data about me is something the state sells (not a thing that the state charges a fee to access, like some public records) is a pretty dismal concept.
Possibly nothing, but in this context, to me, "sell" means sell for a profit, while "charge for access" means charge just enough to cover hosting/admin costs. For something like getting my address or driving record, that's possibly the difference between $5 and $20 per request (total guesses).
I suppose it's the difference between "you downloaded this page to your RAM" and "you downloaded this file to your hard drive", plus how "access" means you're given a license to the data, and "selling" means you now own it as property.
man, that is incredibly f*cked.