Ark. Code Ann. § 27-19-503 (2026)
Presumption of uninsured
There shall be a presumption created that a motorist and the vehicle the motorist is operating are uninsured if the motorist has failed within ninety (90) days of the date of an accident to file or cause to be filed in his or her behalf a certificate proving that the motorist or the vehicle the motorist is operating is insured in at least minimum insurance limits as required by law, and any person alleging or contending that the motorist or the vehicle the motorist is operating is insured shall have the burden of proving that coverage.
History. Acts 1953, No. 347, § 18; 1973, No. 334, § 1; 1975, No. 1007, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-1418; Acts 2003, No. 1043, § 1.
Cross References. Accidents generally, § 27-53-101 et seq.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
This section is not unconstitutional because there is a rational connection between the proof that a person has not filed a certificate of insurance as required by law and the presumption that the person is therefore uninsured. Throesch v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 100 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2000), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 255 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2001).
Where defendant pointed to no rules of civil procedure which would conflict with the presumption of being uninsured created in this section by the Arkansas General Assembly, the section is not unconstitutional based on any separation of powers concerns. Throesch v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 100 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2000), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 255 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2001).
In General.
This section creates a presumption of “uninsured” status which extends beyond the narrow purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act to the Uninsured Motorist Act. Throesch v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 100 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2000), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 255 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2001).
Summary judgment was properly awarded to insurers in a motor vehicle passenger's action to recover uninsured motorist benefits after a car in which the passenger was riding was involved in an accident where Acts 2003, chapter 1043, amending this section, did not amend § 23-89-403. The law under this section remained that a plaintiff had to prove that the other vehicle was uninsured. Kelley v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 371 Ark. 344, 266 S.W.3d 734 (2007).
Construction.
The presumption created by this section addresses the insurance coverage of both the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle's owner. Throesch v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 100 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2000), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 255 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2001).
This section does not create a presumption that a vehicle was uninsured; the statutory presumption applies only to motorists, not to vehicles. Throesch v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 255 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2001).
Where an unidentified vehicle that left the scene caused plaintiff motorist to run off the road and wreck but did not have physical contact with plaintiff's vehicle, the circuit court correctly followed case law by rejecting plaintiff's argument that failure to comply with this section created a presumption that the unidentified vehicle was uninsured for purposes of uninsured-vehicle insurance coverage, and the circuit court correctly declined to allow a jury to speculate that the other vehicle was uninsured merely because it left the scene. Konecny v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch., 2019 Ark. App. 452, 588 S.W.3d 349 (2019).
Policy Language.
Under language of the automobile insurance policy in question, the hit-and-run vehicle must “hit” the plaintiff for coverage under the hit-and-run provision of the policy to apply. Throesch v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 100 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Ark. 2000), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 255 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2001).
Cited: Davis v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 231 Ark. 211, 330 S.W.2d 276 (1959); Halliman v. Stiles, 250 Ark. 249, 464 S.W.2d 573 (1971); Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171, 200 S.W.3d 411 (2004).