Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (2024)
Exceptions to requirement of security and revocation - Additional acceptable proof of financial security
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
The requirements of security and revocation contained in this part shall not apply to:
- (1) An operator or owner, if the owner had in effect at the time of the accident, an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident, except that an operator shall not be exempt under this subdivision (1) if, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being operated without the owner's permission, either expressed or implied;
- (2) An operator who is not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, if there was, in effect at the time of the accident, an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to driving a vehicle not owned by the operator;
- (3) An operator or owner whose liability for damages resulting from the accident is, in the judgment of the commissioner, covered by another form of liability insurance policy or bond;
- (4) Any owner qualifying as a self-insurer or to any operator of a vehicle owned by a person qualifying as a self-insurer as outlined in § 55-12-111;
- (5) Any operator or owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident wherein no injury or damage was caused to the person or property of anyone other than the operator or owner;
- (6) An owner of a motor vehicle, if at the time of the accident the vehicle was being operated without the owner's permission, either expressed or implied, or was parked by a person who had been operating the motor vehicle without permission;
- (7) Any owner or operator who shall submit, on or before the date of revocation, proof satisfactory to the commissioner of acceptance of liability for the accident and an agreement concerning the payment of damages satisfactory to all parties claiming damages. This exemption shall not apply, however, if the owner or operator fails to carry out the terms of the agreement. The commissioner may at any time within three (3) years after the accident, upon notice of such failure, take any action that might have been taken had the agreement not been made;
- (8) Vehicles owned by the United States, this state or any political subdivision of this state or any municipality therein, or to the operator of any vehicle so owned, when the vehicle is involved in an accident;
- (9) Any vehicle owned and operated by a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the department of safety or the interstate commerce commission;
- (10) Any person licensed and engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles to be operated on the public highways shall be required only to furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against the person in the person's capacity as owner of the motor vehicle, and shall not be required to furnish proof of its financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against the person to whom the motor vehicle was rented or leased at the time of the accident;
- (11) A driver or owner of a vehicle that, at the time of the accident, was parked, unless the vehicle was parked at a place where parking at the time of the accident was prohibited by any applicable law or ordinance, or unless the vehicle was parked in an otherwise unlawful manner;
- (12) Any person employed by the government of the United States, while the person is acting within the scope of the office or employment and is involved in a motor vehicle accident;
- (13) An owner or operator of any vehicle where there is no physical contact with another vehicle or object or person, unless a judgment has been obtained;
- (14) A driver or owner of a vehicle who has submitted to the commissioner on or before the date of revocation notarized releases executed by all parties who have previously filed claims with the department as a result of the accident; or
- (15) Any person who has obtained a discharge in bankruptcy that discharged all claims against the person because of the accident listed in the petition; provided, that the discharge shall not relieve the person from the requirements of giving and maintaining proof of financial responsibility as required by § 55-12-126, and the person must pay a restoration fee of sixty-five dollars ($65.00) and pass the driver license examination.
Acts 1977, ch. 446, § 6; T.C.A., § 59-1256; Acts 1980, ch. 817, § 6; 1986, ch. 842, § 19; 1995, ch. 305, § 115.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Edward Martin v. Gregory Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2016).
Edward Martin v. Gregory Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2016). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10) (emphases added).”
Norton v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. (In Re Norton), 76 B.R. 624 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1987). “License revocation can be avoided if the licensee falls within one of 15 exceptions to revocation in § 55-12-106. The 15 subpar-agraphs of TENN.”
Pritchard v. Eberhardt (In Re Eberhardt), 92 B.R. 773 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “License revocation can be avoided if the owner or operator falls within one of fifteen exceptions to revocation contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-12-106. One of the exceptions pertains to persons who have received a discharge in bankruptcy discharging those claims arising out of…”
Norton v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. (In Re Norton), 84 B.R. 119 (M.D. Tenn. 1988). “The only issue herein is whether the Bankruptcy Court of this District erred in concluding that subsection 15 of the Tennessee Financial Responsibility (the Tennessee Act), T.C.A. § 55-12-106, discriminates against bankruptcy-debtors in violation of 11 U.”
Craig Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. W2019-00851-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2020). “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10). Rather, the TFRL only requires Lexus of Memphis to “furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against [it] in [its] capacity as owner of the motor vehicle.”
Craig Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. W2019-00851-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2020). “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10). Rather, the TFRL only requires Lexus of Memphis to “furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against [it] in [its] capacity as owner of the motor vehicle.”
Mississippi Farm Mut. v. Latonia & Thomas Jones, No. 02A01-9607-CV-00151 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 1997). “§ 55-12-106 (1) (Supp. 1997). In order to qualify, the policy must meet the following requirements: (a) No policy or bond shall be effective under § 55-12-106, unless issued by an insurance company or surety company licensed to do business in this state .”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106(10): 3 cases
Edward Martin v. Gregory Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2016). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10) (emphases added).”
Craig Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. W2019-00851-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2020). “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10). Rather, the TFRL only requires Lexus of Memphis to “furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against [it] in [its] capacity as owner of the motor vehicle.”
Craig Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. W2019-00851-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2020). “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10). Rather, the TFRL only requires Lexus of Memphis to “furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against [it] in [its] capacity as owner of the motor vehicle.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106(15): 3 cases
Norton v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. (In Re Norton), 76 B.R. 624 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1987). “License revocation can be avoided if the licensee falls within one of 15 exceptions to revocation in § 55-12-106. The 15 subpar-agraphs of TENN.”
Pritchard v. Eberhardt (In Re Eberhardt), 92 B.R. 773 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “License revocation can be avoided if the owner or operator falls within one of fifteen exceptions to revocation contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-12-106. One of the exceptions pertains to persons who have received a discharge in bankruptcy discharging those claims arising out of…”
Norton v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. (In Re Norton), 84 B.R. 119 (M.D. Tenn. 1988). “The only issue herein is whether the Bankruptcy Court of this District erred in concluding that subsection 15 of the Tennessee Financial Responsibility (the Tennessee Act), T.C.A. § 55-12-106, discriminates against bankruptcy-debtors in violation of 11 U.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106(4): 1 case
Edward Martin v. Gregory Powers, 505 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2016). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-106 (10) (emphases added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.