Chicago DUI attorney comments on new insurance legislation that doesn't pass muster

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about  driving without insurance.

Seriously, the things that get to the floor as possible new laws never cease to astonish me.

From HB3385:

Automobile insurance; denial of coverage to unlicensed drivers.  An insurer issuing a policy of automobile liability insurance listing a driver as insured shall not deny coverage to that driver for the sole reason that he or she lacks a valid drivers license, provided that such person was identified on the application for the policy as an unlicensed driver.  However, nothing in this Section shall prohibit an insurer from requesting or enforcing a named driver exclusion with respect to an unlicensed driver.

So what’s wrong with this you ask?  Well first, it means your insurance has to continue to cover the claim whenever you are involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist.  Yes, even if the other party was at fault for the accident.  Now before you get righteously indignant and start talking about suing the individual just take a deep breath and think.  What are the odds that the person who doesn’t have insurance has money to pay your damages when you sue them?  Yep.  You are probably looking at a judgment proof individual.

Another problem with this bill is it lets the insurer take money from the unlicensed driver for the premiums, giving the unlicensed driver the false belief that she’s covered, while at the same time, permitting the insurance company to exclude the unlicensed driver.  You don’t expect an individual to realize that the policy they are paying for excludes them or their spouse or their young adult son or daughter do you?

At the end of the day, there’s no reason for this bill to be written into law.  Why do taxpayers need to codify the insurance industry’s desire to take money from folks while not covering any claims made on the purchased policies?