Not All Uninsured Taxi Drivers Get Treated the Same



For taxi drivers who let their insurance lapse with active permit (Violation: Chapter 55.12 [4] and Chapter 55.34(4)) the punishment is not doled out equally at the Vehicle for Hire Administrator’s Public Hearings.

At the 8/6 hearing (Minutes), taxi driver Hermann Leyva had an active permit but had let his insurance lapse for 6 days. Mr. Leyva said he was aware of the lapse of insurance. He was in search of new coverage due to the rise in cost. He said he was not operating the vehicle, but admitted he should have informed the VFH Unit during this time period.

Mr Leyva received a $500 fine.

At the 6/4 hearing (Minutes), Bashar Aljeroudi had a lapse of insurance of 6 days. Mr. Aljeroudi said, he was advised from his agency, that his insurance coverage would be increased at renewal. Mr. Aljeroudi said, he began search of an affordable insurance quote. Mr. Aljeroudi stated his search for new insurance quotes, caused the delay in active coverage.

Mr. Aljeroudi received a warning.

At the 4/2 hearing (Minutes), Joseph Bridwell had a lapse of insurance of 4 days (Violation: Chapter 55.12(4)). Mr. Bridwell stated the insurance agency gave him late notification, that his insurance quote would be higher at renewal. Mr. Bridwell said, he began to seek insurance elsewhere. At no time, he knew coverage was not in effect.

Mr. Bridwell received a $500 fine.

At the 6/4 hearing , Marcus Floyd had a lapse of insurance of 45 days with vehicle permit. Mr. Floyd stated his current insurance representative was unreachable during this time period. Mr. Floyd said that he was advised by the agency there were no records reflecting active coverage for him. Mr. Floyd stated at this point, he began to search for new coverage.

Mr. Floyd received a warning.

At the 6/4 hearing, Vitor Spier had a lapse of insurance of 41 days. Mr. Spier explained he was aware of the lapse of coverage, but did not operate the vehicle during the lapse time. Mr. Spier said, he was advised from his agency, that his insurance coverage would be increased at renewal. Mr. Spier said, he was began search of an affordable insurance quote. Mr. Spier stated his search for new insurance quotes, caused the delay in active coverage.

Mr. Spier received a $500 fine.

At the 6/4 hearing, Jorge Ospina had a lapse of insurance of 15 days. Mr. Ospina explained he was informed by the Department of Transportation, due to change of regulations the renewal of his insurance coverage will be increased. Mr. Ospina stated he began his search for insurance quotes which caused the delay in active coverage.

Mr. Ospina received a warning.

At the 4/2 hearing, Sajit Govind had a lapse of insurance of 18 days (Violation: Chapter 55.12(4)) Mr. Govind stated the vehicle was not being used, due to mechanical issues and during lapse of insurance. Mr. Govind apologized for the mistake and will seek insurance for the vehicle.

Mr. Govind received a $500 fine.

At the 8/6 hearing, Clayton Anstead had a lapse of insurance of 5 days. Mr. Anstead said he relied on his insurance agent to locate a new insurance provider, but during the search period, his insurance lapsed.

Mr Anstead received a $500 fine.