60-508. Ability to respond in damages; automobile liability policy; no suspension; exemptions.

Sections 60-507 and 60-511 shall not apply:

(1) To such operator or owner if such owner had in effect at the time of such accident an automobile liability policy with respect to the motor vehicle involved in such accident;

(2) To such operator, if not the owner of such motor vehicle, if there was in effect at the time of such accident an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to his operation of motor vehicles not owned by him;

(3) To such operator or owner if the liability of such operator or owner for damages resulting from such accident is, in the judgment of the department, covered by any other form of liability insurance policy or bond;

(4) To any person qualifying as a self-insurer under sections 60-562 to 60-564 or to any operator of a motor vehicle owned by such self-insurer;

(5) To any person employed by the government of the United States when such person is acting within the scope or office of his employment; or

(6) If such operator is released from liability by a court of justice.

Source

Annotations

This section clearly details the proof of financial responsibility requirements that a vehicle operator or owner must meet in the event of an accident. Russell v. State, 247 Neb. 885, 531 N.W.2d 212 (1995).

Uninsured motorist coverage is dependent upon legal liability of the uninsured motorist to the insured. Crossley v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 198 Neb. 26, 251 N.W.2d 383 (1977).

The uninsured motorist statute does not prohibit a limitation of liability to the minimum limits required by statute in each policy even though the policy may insure more than one automobile. Pettid v. Edwards, 195 Neb. 713, 240 N.W.2d 344 (1976).

A motor vehicle covered by insurance in limits specified in this section does not become an uninsured vehicle, when because of multiple claims the insurance is not sufficient to satisfy liability of the insured to each claimant to the limits specified herein for individual claims. Emery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 195 Neb. 619, 239 N.W.2d 798 (1976).

In absence of showing Department of Motor Vehicles mailed Part II of accident report to insurance company named therein, there is no presumption provisions of this section were met. Belek v. Travelers Ind. Co., 187 Neb. 470, 191 N.W.2d 819 (1971).

Exceptions are made when owner or operator can show proof of financial responsibility. Montgomery v. Blazek, 161 Neb. 349, 73 N.W.2d 402 (1955).

Exceptions are made where suspension of license is not required. Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620 (1952).