PDA

View Full Version : Bought insurance Texas wants more info


SL350
11-13-2014, 09:30 AM
1969 CT90 project bike....

I just got an official letter from Texas Sure which is part of the Texas DMV I guess. The letter says that I have insurance for a vehicle not registered. Then they list the CT90 project that I got for $300 that is still needing a headlight (hard to find) and a couple of other fixes to pass inspection.

I only insured it because I was dropping a bike I sold, but I did think I would be able to get a green sheet soon as this was a "Bill of Sale" bike.

Long story short I get this long form and have to choose from 4 descriptions, none of which fits my situation. I have 10 days to check a box and sign with "according to Texas Penal Code 37.10".

My choices are

1. My insurance is wrong.
2. My registration is incorrect.
3. The vehicle is registered in another state.
4. I sold the vehicle. I notified my insurance company AND filed the Vehicle Transfer Notification.

None of these fit. Until I find a suitable headlight and get the bike ready for inspection it is doing fine on private property. Nothing I am doing is illegal yet here I am.

SilverBullet
11-13-2014, 10:19 AM
I've received that letter before also. I just hand wrote "off highway vehicle, not registered".

I also received a similar letter from my insurance company and answered a similar way for my untitled vintage MX bike. I have original MSO to prove ownership.

Is it really so unusual that someone insures their untitled/unregistered bikes? I pay about $60 a year for liability and fire/theft on each dirt bike. Well worth the peace of mind in case my garage gets cleaned out by fire or a thief.

_

SL350
11-13-2014, 10:33 AM
That I did nothing wrong, and neither did you, why do we have to take the time to stamp and mail this? What are they actually doing for the state by badgering someone WITH insurance? I should not have to pay a penny for a stamp.

SilverBullet
11-13-2014, 10:43 AM
State is fishing for revenue. I guess people buy vehicles and insure and drive without transfering the title and registering. When an official letter comes from the state they then known eyes are on them and might spur them to cough up the funds.

_

SL350
11-13-2014, 10:45 AM
I just don't expect it from Texas. This is something right out of CA.

MotorcycleBelle
11-13-2014, 12:27 PM
I got the same letter for my TTR 230. More paperwork and it says right on the face of the document the model of the bike. Sheesh. There's some money savings right there, the state could have saved by not send this form to off road vehicles.

One more step towards Idiocracy.

SL350
11-13-2014, 12:32 PM
You know I get that they need to see insurance WHEN someone registers. But isn't digging through our insurance records a bit of an invasion of privacy? What if you never wanted anyone to know you have a dirt bike and it never left your property? It is no different than them coming onto your property and searching your barn. I thought that was illegal search and seizure? Wonder if it is just waiting for a challenge by offroad bikers?

bmcdonau
11-13-2014, 01:20 PM
I have an XL350 on my policy that is titled, but hasn't been registered in over year. It's cheaper to insure four bikes than three.

MotoTex
11-13-2014, 01:42 PM
Welcome to the world of "What's in the database is reality. What a rational person considers reality matters not."

Software that isn't written to account for every possibility within the application will certainly be problematic. Here we have a couple of other possibilities that could have had check boxes provided, database entries for antiques and off-road only vehicles that might not necessarily be registered.

Clearly, the state went with the low bid on the programming, or more likely, the spec defining the scope of work to be performed wasn't written well. So, the database filter has no way to account for off road only, or projects that aren't roadworthy, etc. and that are perfectly legit, yet fall outside what was defined.

It is intrusive. Not to mention how it establishes the presumption of violation, leaving the burden upon the off-roader or project builder to prove innocence.

The biggest problem I have with programs like this is how they encourage people to avoid responsibility, because "as long as Big Brother is watching I don't have to manage my own affairs."

There are merits to encouraging people to think. This kind of thing will net the opposite effect in the long run.

MaxxTraxx
11-13-2014, 02:10 PM
I got the same letter for my CR, just called them yesterday and said it is insured dirt bike and won't be driven on the street till next summer. They said no problem and I didn't have to do anything else.

focus frenzy
11-13-2014, 02:12 PM
they see that you are paying insurance on a bike that is not in the system, so you could be riding around on a bike with another states plates on it beyond the time period allowed to transfer a vehicle.

or there is something wrong with your registration.

or you are paying for insurance on a motorcycle when you don't have to.

SL350
11-13-2014, 02:37 PM
When did this start? This is my first notice and I usually do insure bikes when I get them even if it takes a year or two to overhaul and get them ready to ride.

Yes, it does assumes violation and expect me to prove otherwise, doesn't it? I guess the IRS started the guilty until proven innocent and now it is true even here with old and off-road bikes. I can't imagine this being a big revenue generator and ever paying off this lowest bidder.

Since I am not guilty of anything I will not buy a stamp and mail their form in, especially since I don't match any of the check boxes. A phone call could work but I found out the hard way that any phone call does not hold up in court. You got to have it in writing or it didn't happen.

MotorcycleBelle
11-13-2014, 03:09 PM
I think it's because the state can access your insurance coverage, when you get pulled over for a traffic violation, at the registration office, and who knows what else. The clerk at the county clerk's office waved away the insurance card I has searched for high and low. She said she could see on her screen I was insured.

The policeman who pulled me over for speeding when I was on the way to the hospital hoping to arrive before my new granddaughter did, could also see my insurance coverage while he called the hospital to see if my daughter was actually in labor. :roll: yes, I got a warning and a lecture. :shame:

So now we have to explain why our insured off road vehicles are unregistered when they already have that information, it's a brown title even.

And we have to keep digging around for these proof of insurance cards even though they apparently already have this information.

:loco:

MotorcycleBelle
11-13-2014, 03:13 PM
SL350, that avatar is hilarious!

TLRam1
11-13-2014, 03:48 PM
What happens if you do nothing and throw the letter in the trash, what can they do, you are doing nothing wrong.

SL350
11-13-2014, 06:11 PM
SL350, that avatar is hilarious!

It is the Macey's Thanksgiving parade float for Jimmy Durante. Glad you like it.

dutchinterceptor
11-13-2014, 10:37 PM
What happens if you do nothing and throw the letter in the trash, what can they do, you are doing nothing wrong.

I accidentally dropped a slice of pizza on the one I just received regarding a previously sold vehicle. Figured they didn't want it back with pepperoni stains so I tossed it.

Thrasherg
11-14-2014, 10:36 AM
I recently got stopped for speeding and the officer was very upset that I didn't have the vehicle registration documents with me. When I pointed out that he had a very expensive computer in his car paid for by tax payers like myself that can confirm the registration and insurance of my vehicle he got quite rude and insisted that the law required me to carry the documents. I pointed out that if the car got stolen they would have the documents and that would not help me. He eventually checked everything on his computer, gave me the ticket and we parted our ways. I still refuse to carry the registration documents, I always have proof of insurance on me, but we pay a fortune to the state to register our vehicles and to the police to have these computers so they can use them as they intended, to check vehicle status.

Gary

SL350
11-14-2014, 11:35 AM
Is carrying registration the law?

zorba
11-14-2014, 02:53 PM
Canned my notices months ago and haven't heard anything ........yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hizzo3
11-14-2014, 03:13 PM
Carry registration is for commercial vehicles.

I have a vn750 that hasn't been ridden in years but on insurance for theft/damage purposes. Its cheap so haven't removed it. I wonder where my notice is so I can tell them I don't care. Lol

Raoul Duke
11-15-2014, 08:57 AM
I got one of those letters. I bought a bike from CA and had to get it inspected before TX would issue a tag. I had insurance go into effect to coincide with my date of purchase to have coverage for the CA to TX shipping. I responded to the letter with the truth and it was tagged within 10 days and that's the last I heard of it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

swoody126
11-15-2014, 09:28 AM
i got a similar letter that alerted me to the fact that my policy and registration documents had different VIN's

a quick check pointed out that there was a clerical error and i, then, realized that if i had been involved in an incident, i wouldn't have been covered

since i have been involved in an incident where the AT FAULT vehicle had only minimum coverage, it alarmed me to think i might have been caught WITHOUT ANY COVERAGE

for those of you who do get one of these notices, JUST CALL THE NUMBER LISTED and explain your position

doesn't take long and you may be really glad to have any discrepancies cleared up, before you need coverage

sw

Centex
11-15-2014, 10:00 AM
http://www.texassure.com/Insuranceverification.html

http://www.texassure.com/consumernotices.html

I'd never heard of this so Googled "Texas Sure" and found the above website. Personally I'm in favor of the stated goal of reducing the number of uninsured motorists on TX roads, so many law-abiding folks get screwed by those that aren't in this regard.

Yeah, the database may not be perfect but from the posts above it sounds like there's minimal hassles involved in clearing up the described legitimate situations/legal exceptions.

IMHO this is one case where info collection/sharing/use may actually benefit the small guy; until I hear instances of really problematic implementation/execution I'm gonna be supporting this one.

SL350
11-15-2014, 10:01 AM
a quick check pointed out that there was a clerical error and i, then, realized that if i had been involved in an incident, i wouldn't have been covered


sw

Really? Wife had a wreck with a guy whose insurance had two numbers on the VIN swapped and they covered the accident. I guess it depends on the insurance company.

SL350
11-15-2014, 10:06 AM
http://www.texassure.com/Insuranceverification.html

http://www.texassure.com/consumernotices.html

I'd never heard of this so Googled "Texas Sure" and found the above website. Personally I'm in favor of the stated goal of reducing the number of uninsured motorists on TX roads, so many law-abiding folks get screwed by those that aren't in this regard.

Yeah, the database may not be perfect but from the posts above it sounds like there's minimal hassles involved in clearing up the described legitimate situations/legal exceptions.

IMHO this is one case where info collection/sharing/use may actually benefit the small guy; until I hear instances of really problematic implementation/execution I'm gonna be supporting this one.

I think the problem with the uninsured is not people with insurance, it is people without insurance. And it seems the more and more we do to fix this problem, we are not getting the guys without insurance off the road as I keep hearing about accidents with these guys.

So no, I would be against harassment and making them take the time and even buy a stamp if they have insurance. It did make me a little uncomfortable when it gave me 10 days to respond, had no check marks for my situation, and added a sentence at the end that if I signed it and made a false statement I was subject to penal codes.

Edit: would the stamp be considered a tax?

STJim
11-15-2014, 12:52 PM
Avoid the tax stamp, mail it without a return address.

Centex
11-15-2014, 06:30 PM
I think the problem with the uninsured is not people with insurance, it is people without insurance. And it seems the more and more we do to fix this problem, we are not getting the guys without insurance off the road as I keep hearing about accidents with these guys.

So no, I would be against harassment and making them take the time and even buy a stamp if they have insurance. It did make me a little uncomfortable when it gave me 10 days to respond, had no check marks for my situation, and added a sentence at the end that if I signed it and made a false statement I was subject to penal codes.

Edit: would the stamp be considered a tax?

http://www.texassure.com/consumernotices.html

Sample of notice for unmatched insurance:
http://www.texassure.com/documents/SAMPLEunmatched.pdf

Didn't the notice you received match the sample posted on the Texas Sure website? Polite explanation of reason and purpose, plenty of "please", "we need your help", option 5 clearly stated on page 1: "None of the above .... a representative can help ...Please call toll-free number...", "Thank you" in closing, and you got one notice?

Sorry but if you construe that notice as "harassment" and an opportunity to address the matter by toll-free phone call as a tax or undue burden .... well, given complete disclosure of the form of the notice I'm still looking for a definition of harassment that reasonably fits your interpretation.:ponder:

FYI sample of notice for vehicle registered without record of insurance:
http://www.texassure.com/documents/SAMPLEuninsured.pdf

We agree on the real problem (uninsured motorists); we seem to disagree on our willingness as citizens to spend a few moments of time to help with database cleanup in an effort to address that problem.

So it goes.:zen:

SL350
11-15-2014, 09:22 PM
Isn't compelling someone to fill out government forms under threat of prosecution just about the very definition of harassment?

I won't do the phone call because if it comes back on me, phone conversations are Hearsay and are inadmissible in court.

TLRam1
11-15-2014, 09:41 PM
I agree, you have it insured, whether registered or not is none of the states concern. It is only a concern if you drive on public roads, than it's a police matter.

I don't understand the letter, seems like a waste of time for everyone, harassment and nothing I see is accomplished.

Seems like it ought to be the other way around, if it is registered with NO insurance than you get a letter to explain. Yes/No?

hizzo3
11-16-2014, 12:01 AM
Maybe if I get my letter, I'll call my insurance and tell them the state wants me to cancel. I bet the letters would stop then lol

YoDoc
11-16-2014, 12:39 AM
There doesn't appear to be any requirement to reply. In fact, the only references to any legal problems are that you shouldn't lie on the form, and that if you're out driving your insured, but unregistered, vehicle on the roads, you could get a citation when the cop can't find your registration.

Throw it away, if you think it's harassment. It doesn't appear binding.

Centex
11-16-2014, 01:04 AM
Isn't compelling someone to fill out government forms under threat of prosecution just about the very definition of harassment?Not one word on that form demands that you fill it out or return it - "please" prefaces every request for response; it's hard to construe anything prefaced by that word as a demand or "compelling".

The only "threat" is the warning that IF you choose to respond you must do so truthfully.

I won't do the phone call because if it comes back on me, phone conversations are Hearsay and are inadmissible in courtNot if recorded with notice which is fairly standard procedure for corporate and government call-centers. In any case, life lived in anticipation of litigation must be 'interesting'.

If you look for problems you'll likely find 'em; if you look for solutions they might happen. Clearly we've different approaches to life, I sincerely hope you're as happy in yours as I am in mine.

Carry on. :chug:

mototeddy
11-17-2014, 07:26 PM
The state began the program about a year and a half ago or so...at its heart it is intended to match up the OPPOSITE...registered vehicles with no evidence of insurance...it is contracted to a third party company...there are in fact a wide range of reasons you would have insurance and no registration...as someone mentioned previously...it's data being matched and triggering a no match action. I'm an insurance agent..and had a handful of clients that got these notices early on in the campaign..

If you choose to call the number and walk through the process...it's your call...there is no penalty for not making the call...the state is simply trying to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on the road...if that's not you...no worries.

mikes old virago
11-17-2014, 11:41 PM
In Texas, no registration is carried EXCEPT for commercial vehicles.
Carrying liability insurance on an off-road vehicle is smart. You could hit some farmers cow while on his land and be covered!

MotoTex
11-18-2014, 10:32 AM
In Texas, no registration is carried EXCEPT for commercial vehicles.

Sound of soapbox being deployed. :doh: (oh no, not again ...)

(Caution: those who most often prefer to hold a belief rather than test against fact may do well to skip this. :giveup: Rational, open-minded folks who aren't so easily offended, read on. ;-) )

The above is true and correct, as I recall, the chapter for registration is defined as "applying to vehicles owned by the state and political subdivisions of the state." So, which are you? The state, or, a political subdivision thereof?

These "subdivisions" include the like of; corporations registered with the state, commercial operators licensed by the state, and, anyone who volunteers into the program to receive the benefits from registration (theft prevention, etc.). Thus declaring themselves as a political subdivision. Which is allowed, even if in actuality they aren't "required" to do so.

Learning this left me scratching my head trying to understand how we came to believe that non commercial vehicles are required to be registered when nothing in this defining portion of the chapter indicates this would be the case.

As I understand it, the state is limited to regulating commercial activity in order to protect the citizenry. These regulations are written to allow citizens to partake in the "benefit" of registration, but cannot "require" that they do. For instance, a statute can require that a commercial dealership must "offer" to register the vehicle for a private citizen, but the letter of the law comes short of requiring that they "must" actually do so. Those who are required to be registered and are purchasing from the dealer may be required to let the dealer file paperwork at time of purchase.

This, of course, opens another can of worms, raising the usual arguments about how everyone NEEDS to be regulated or "I" don't feel safe. blah blah blah

Bottom line is that everyone is personally responsible for their stuff and liable for damage caused by them or their stuff. The insurance and regulations associated with registration apply to; those actually required to be registered, and, those "self-declared political subdivisions" of the state that aren't actually required to do so.

Not that this is a bad thing. Merely pointing out that this is how the statutes are written.

They are written this way because to write it otherwise would fail the constitutional test, and violate the rights reserved by the constitution for the people. This would nullify any such law on its face for not meeting the constitutional test. The legislators must write the laws to conform to the constitution's limits placed upon state and federal government regarding the reserved rights of the people. This leads to a lot of misleading phrases that can be easily taken any of several ways, depending upon who it is being applied to.

The fact that people, generally, prefer to be ruled to a greater or lesser degree, over taking responsibility thru self-rule as the founders envisioned, is what leads to creating what appears to be a contradictory, voluntary system like this to account for this discrepancy in human nature. This "herd" mentality is lizard-brain stuff, and difficult to overcome through rational thought, though the founders did their best to create a system that allows it, they couldn't, through legislation, make people continue to learn and think this way for themselves.

Just because the law must be written making things like non-commercial driver license, non-commercial registration, etc. available on a voluntary basis is in no way indicating that it would be a good idea to abandon the system as it now operates.

Clearly, the people prefer it this way. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and safe. Even when, by undermining the tenet of accepting personal responsibility and holding respect for others person and property, such a system actually makes things less safe while giving the illusion otherwise.

Still, it is good that the right to self-govern is preserved in the statutes, even though for one to choose to actually do so would be a ridiculous swim against the current of popular belief held by those who don't fully grasp the foundation upon which the statutes are crafted.

I'm trying my best to write this in a way that doesn't inflame others due to their beliefs, all while illustrating how what the law actually says is different than what most people believe.

This is an issue of logic, rather than of emotion. It is neither a call to anarchy, nor is it "bashing the system." It is merely explaining an otherwise confusing aspect of the system in use in regard to the words defining the law in statutes.

Between you, me and the gatepost, it does get old when folks read what I write about these things and immediately presume this is some kind of call to arms.

It isn't.

It is just the facts, ma'am.

The world would be a better place if more folks understood how believing something voluntary is mandatory undermines building respect, encouraging personal responsibility and is counter to promoting what used to be known as "The American Way."

(sound of soapbox being put away)

This form as it is used is fine. It provides a benefit to compensate for people who have been trained over generations to abandon taking personal responsibility, preferring the comfort of their lives being managed by a benevolent third-party.

Responsible people are right to take issue with a benevolent third party stepping in to manage their affairs. (often not realizing how they granted tacit permission to do so by volunteering to become a political subdivision)

Some are more accepting about being managed, perhaps because they won't do it for themselves, or just feel it is better, easier, makes the world safer, etc.

It is a conundrum. :zen:

mikes old virago
11-18-2014, 01:34 PM
As is the case with MOST legal documents, you have to read it ALL in the sequence in which is was WRITTEN. (I get this a LOT with questions on the ACA-health care law)
You do not have to CARRY your registration unless you are in a vehicle that is not expressly shown to be OWNED by YOU. Thus corporations and government (city, county,state,etc) vehicles are 'owned' by 'non-persons', so the registration (a COPY) must be with the vehicle. Then, you have to be able to show why you are permitted to drive that vehicle (state, county, business ID)
Registration is required of each vehicle, but SHOWING the registration isn't needed. They can check your ID and know every vehicle you own.

Irishcoffee
12-03-2014, 10:40 AM
Maybe this would be easier if the form asked about which oil you use.

hizzo3
12-03-2014, 12:17 PM
Maybe this would be easier if the form asked about which oil is better.

Fixt!

DaveC
12-03-2014, 12:36 PM
Every year I go get a "registration" sticker for my license plate, defacto I carry my registration with me. I would take the ticket to the judge and state this very thing.

Meriden
12-03-2014, 12:53 PM
Aren't most of the uninsured guys using Rotella?

hizzo3
12-03-2014, 04:58 PM
Aren't most of the uninsured guys using Rotella?
Nah, too expensive. I've seen a few grabbing supertech from wally world and fram filters