BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2298
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2298 (Solorio)
As Amended August 24, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 3, 2012) |SENATE: | |(August 29, |
| | | | |33-2 |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: B. & P.
SUMMARY : Requires employers of firefighters and peace officers
to assume liability for accidents involving personal vehicles
used for work purposes and prohibits insurers from increasing
automobile insurance rates or refusing to issue or renew private
automobile insurance based on accidents that occur while peace
officers and firefighters are driving personal vehicles for work
purposes.
The Senate amendments delete the prior contents of the bill and:
1)Prohibits insurers from increasing the automobile insurance
premium charged to a peace officer or firefighter based on an
accident that occurs when they are driving a private vehicle
in the course of their duty at the request or direction of
their employer.
2)Prohibits employers from requiring that peace officers and
firefighters report an accident involving an authorized
emergency vehicle in the performance of their duty.
3)Provides that any time a private vehicle is used by a peace
officer or firefighter at the request or direction of their
employer, the employer shall bear all liability for accidents
or injuries.
4)Require peace officers and firefighters to report any injury
or loss resulting from an accident while driving their
personal vehicle for work purposes to their private automobile
insurer within 10 days.
5)Require the employer of a peace officer or firefighter that
directs the use of a private vehicle for work purposes to
AB 2298
Page 2
defend the employee when there is a dispute as to whether the
vehicle was operated at the direction of the employer.
6)Require the employer and employee to provide all documentation
related to a claim involving a private vehicle to the
employees' insurer within 10 days if it is determined that the
employer did not request the employee to use a private vehicle
for work purposes.
7)Specify that the employer is not liable for accidents or
injuries when the employee is driving to or from their regular
place of work.
8)Prohibit insurers from basing an adverse underwriting decision
on an accident involving a peace officer or firefighter that
occurs at work.
9)Requires the private passenger insurer to reimburse the
employer if it is determined that the employer did not direct
or request the employee to use the vehicle when the accident
or injury occurred.
10)Prohibits insurers from using a "good faith" delay in
reporting an accident as a basis to claim delayed reporting,
noncooperation, prejudice, or the like as a reason to avoid
any obligations they may have in the insurance policy.
11)Defines "private passenger motor vehicle" or "private motor
vehicle" as a motor vehicle that is insured under a personal
automotive liability policy and has at least four wheels.
12)Provides that a report indicating that a vehicle is owned and
operated by a peace officer or firefighter in the performance
of his or her duty and at the direction of his or her employer
is satisfactory evidence of financial responsibility.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , the bill authorized an appointee by
the head of a county agriculture commission to inspect written
records of sales and purchases by junk dealers or recyclers.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, unknown increase in state liability costs potentially
AB 2298
Page 3
in excess of $150,000. (General/Special/Local).
COMMENTS : The contents of this bill were replaced by the
contents of AB 1551 (Torres) of 2012, as amended by the Senate,
which passed the Assembly 69-3. According to the author and
sponsor, local agencies are increasingly asking safety officers,
especially firefighters, to drive in their personal vehicles to
work-related locations. This places the officers' personal
driving records at risk, and adversely impacts their premium
expenses for their personal automobile insurance policy. They
argue that these costs should be part of the employment costs
covered by the public agency, and this bill remedies the
problem.
According to regulations adopted by the Insurance Commissioner
that govern when an insurer may determine that a driver was
principally at fault in an accident, the insurer is prohibited
from doing so if, "The driver was responding to a call of duty
as a paid or volunteer member of any police or fire department,
first aid squad, or of any law enforcement agency, while
performing any other governmental function in a public
emergency." While this provision provides some protection to a
public safety officer, it does not fully address the issue of
who should be responsible for incidents that occur during the
course of employment that do not rise to the level of a public
emergency.
Public employees using their personal vehicles for work purposes
are commonly provided reimbursement based on the number of miles
driven. The standard business rate of reimbursement per mile is
established each year by the Internal Revenue Service. The
current reimbursement rate is $0.555 per mile. This rate
includes items such as depreciation or lease payments,
maintenance and repairs, tires, gasoline (including taxes), oil,
insurance, and license and registration fees when calculating
the reimbursement rate.
In 2010, similar legislation was vetoed (AB 2151 (Torres)). The
Governor's veto message provided:
"This bill would provide that peace officers, members of
the California Highway Patrol, and firefighters would not
AB 2298
Page 4
be required to report any accidents to their private
automobile insurer while operating their personal vehicles
at the request and direction of their employer. This bill
would further require all state and local agencies
employing peace officers or firefighters to pay the costs
of any accident and all damages regardless of whether the
driver of the vehicle was acting recklessly or with gross
negligence.
While there may be reasons for state and local entities to
pay the costs of automobile accidents while employees are
responding to emergency situations in their private
vehicles, this measure would require indemnification in all
situations regardless of the driver's fault, which is
unwarranted. Moreover, the Internal Revenue
Service-established mileage reimbursement rate already
covers costs for insurance for employees that use their
private vehicles for work purposes. Since this measure will
unreasonably shift costs to public employers in a time of
fiscal crisis, I am unable to sign this bill."
Analysis Prepared by : Paul Riches / INS. / (916) 319-2086
FN: 0005792