발의안 213: 기본 사항

Civil Code section 3333.4 contains similar language and applies to persons driving without insurance or driving drunk at the time of the incident.  Indeed, one major purposes of Prop 13 was to lower insurance premiums in California by reducing insurance companies’ liability for certain types of crashes. (Valentich v. United States [Prop 213 limits claims for those who contribute nothing to the insurance pool].)  Over the 25 years since Prop 213 was enacted, California courts have helped defined the contours of the law.  Indeed, it has been a controversial law and has withstood numerous constitutional challenges including those brought under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. In fact, California courts interpreting Prop 13 have done so broadly.

For example, in Day v. City of Fontana, an uninsured motorcyclist was injured after colliding with a car while driving on a public roadway. The motorcyclist sued the City of Fontana, amongst other defendants for his injuries. The motorcyclist’s theory against the city was that the city had allowed vegetation at an intersection to become overgrown, thus blocking the motorcyclist’s sight lines. However, the trial Court refused to allow the motorcyclist to present evidence related to his noneconomic damages at trial. The Court of Appeals ultimately agreed, finding that Prop 213 applied to the motorcyclist.  Importantly, Day v. City of Fontana is a reminder to all drivers, motorcyclists included, that they should always carry insurance while driving.

법안 213의 광범위한 적용 범위를 보여주는 또 다른 예는 혼시클 대 고등법원 판례에서 찾아볼 수 있습니다. 혼시클 사건에서 운전자는 선의로 보험에 가입하려고 시도했지만 보험회사로부터 보험 가입을 거부당했습니다. 그 후 운전자는 차량 충돌 사고로 부상을 입었습니다. 운전자는 비경제적 손해배상을 받으려고 시도했으며 보험 가입을 위해 선의로 노력했다고 주장했습니다. 그러나 캘리포니아 법원은 이에 동의하지 않았습니다. 대신 캘리포니아 항소법원은 법안 213에 '선의'라는 예외가 없다는 사실을 확인했습니다. 즉, 법안 213의 보상 한도를 피하려면 운전자가 사고 발생일에 책임 보험에 가입해야 합니다.

그렇다고 법안 213에 예외가 전혀 없는 것은 아닙니다. 실제로 민법 3333.4항의 명시적인 표현에 따르면 몇 가지 예외가 있습니다. 특히, 3333.4조는 무보험 운전자가 사고 후 음주운전으로 유죄 판결을 받은 운전자로부터 경제적 손해배상을 받을 수 있도록 허용하며, 무보험 차량에 동승한 승객에게는 법안 213이 적용되지 않습니다. 또한 고용주가 보험에 가입하지 않은 회사 차량을 운전하는 직원에게도 법안 213이 적용되지 않습니다. 법안 213의 또 다른 중요한 예외는 차량 운전자가 다른 차량에 보험에 가입했지만 자동차 사고와 관련된 차량이 보험에 가입하지 않은 다른 사람 소유인 경우입니다.

Ultimately, it is important for every California driver to understand the basics of Prop 213. It has had the unfortunate effect of prohibiting indigent drivers who cannot afford insurance from collecting the full value of their personal injury auto claims. If you or a loved one are involved in a crash there may be additional legal complexities due to Prop 213 that require the knowledge and expertise of an attorney.  The lawyers at MKP Law Group, LLP have years of experience working with persons who are injured in all sorts of crashes, including those categories specifically identified by Prop 213. If you or a loved one was hurt in a crash, contact MKP Law Group, LLP online or call us at 310-870-3395 for your 100% free consultation today.