Maine Lawmakers Reject Bill to Allow Religious Organizations to Self-Insure Vehicles
The Maine legislature has once again rejected a bill that would have allowed certain religious organizations to self-insure vehicles owned by the group and its members. The proposed legislation, introduced by Rep. Steven Foster (R-Dexter), aimed to accommodate religious groups like the Mennonite church, whose members avoid traditional auto insurance due to their beliefs.
Supporters of the bill argued that existing state requirements for automobile coverage conflict with the practices of some religious communities. Foster stated that members of the Mennonite church first approached him about this issue in 2019, prompting his initial attempt to pass the bill. He has since reintroduced it multiple times, citing growing interest.
The bill outlined specific criteria for eligibility, including that organizations must be federally recognized religious groups that have existed continuously since at least December 1950, own at least five vehicles in the state, and share a belief in mutual aid. They would also need to provide evidence of financial stability to the state treasurer. Foster testified that, after six years of research, he believes only the Mennonite church would qualify under the bill’s conditions.
Critics of the bill, including the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) and the Bureau of Insurance, raised concerns about administrative burdens, legal ambiguities, and the potential risks to third parties. Sandra Darby, a property/casualty actuary at the Bureau of Insurance, noted that the proposal would effectively assign insurance responsibilities to religious groups without proper oversight. “Although we respect these beliefs, we are concerned that the bill would entrust religious organizations with the responsibilities of an insurer without the regulatory guardrails that keep insurers accountable to their insureds and to claimants,” Darby said.
Darby also highlighted that churches, unlike insurers, are not held to strict solvency standards. “The fact that an organization is technically solvent — that is, its assets exceed its liabilities — is not a good indication that it will be able to pay the auto liability claims against a group of drivers if, in the future, those drivers cause significant losses to third parties,” she explained.
The rejection of this bill highlights the complexities surrounding religious exemptions from insurance requirements and the challenges of balancing religious freedom with consumer protection and regulatory oversight.
