WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1690

Motor Vehicles - As introduced, increases from $25 to $500 the coverage failure fee imposed by the department of revenue for the first failure to comply with the James Lee Atwood Jr. Law; increases that fee to $1,500 and requires registration be suspended or revoked for a second or subsequent failure to comply; bars a plaintiff from recovering noneconomic damages from a defendant arising out of the use of a vehicle if the plaintiff was not in compliance with the financial responsibility law; makes other related revisions. - Amends TCA Title 29; Title 55 and Title 56.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Tim Hicks

Raises uninsured vehicle penalties from $25 to $500/$1,500, suspends registration for repeat offenses, and blocks uninsured plaintiffs from recovering noneconomic damages in vehicle lawsuits.

Rec. for pass by s/c ref. to Finance, Ways, and Means Committee
#motorvehicles
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1690

Legislative bill overview

HB 1690 significantly increases penalties for failing to maintain vehicle insurance coverage under Tennessee's financial responsibility law (the James Lee Atwood Jr. Law). The bill raises the first-offense fee from $25 to $500, imposes a $1,500 fee with registration suspension/revocation for subsequent violations, and prevents uninsured plaintiffs from recovering noneconomic damages in vehicle-related lawsuits.

Why this is important

This bill addresses the serious public safety issue of uninsured drivers, who represent a significant portion of accidents and leave victims without recourse for pain and suffering damages. The penalties are designed to incentivize insurance compliance while simultaneously reducing litigation costs for defendants when plaintiffs lack coverage themselves.

Potential points of contention

  • Regressive impact: Lower-income drivers may face disproportionate hardship from $500+ fees and registration suspension, potentially creating a cycle where inability to pay leads to license suspension and further inability to work or obtain insurance
  • Plaintiff liability concerns: Barring noneconomic damages recovery for uninsured plaintiffs may seem punitive when the plaintiff is a victim, even if they lacked coverage—critics may argue this prioritizes defendant protection over victim compensation
  • Enforcement clarity: The bill doesn't specify how the department determines compliance status or the appeals process for disputed failure notices, potentially creating administrative ambiguity

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.