Judge lets second suit alleging BMV overcharges proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles must answer a second complaint alleging the agency overcharged Hoosiers millions of dollars on almost 30 types of licenses or registrations, a judge ruled Wednesday.

BMV previously agreed to refund $30 million for overcharges of operator’s licenses as a result of an earlier lawsuit.

In the latest lawsuit, Marion Superior Judge James Osborn denied the BMV’s motions to dismiss and stay discovery. The suit seeks class action status.

Lead plaintiff Tammy Raab sued the bureau alleging that 29 BMV fees overcharged people from 50 cents to $11 dollars, according to Cohen & Malad LLP managing partner Irwin Levin.

Among the more commonly alleged overcharges were $3 for motorcycle endorsements, $1 for duplicate titles, $4.50 for chauffeur’s license, $3 for personalized plates, and $1 for plate transfers. Overcharges of $11 are alleged for antique year of manufacture registrations.

“We’re guessing the number is in the tens of millions of dollars” that Hoosiers were overcharged at the BMV, Levin said Friday. The BMV hasn’t provided an accounting of how much it collected from the overcharges, and depositions are scheduled next month.

“We’re going to find out whether the BMV is just reckless in making sure they charge people the legal amount or if something else is going on,” he said.

BMV previously announced it would refund $30 million to motorists who were overcharged $3.50 to $7 for driver’s licenses. That suit  also was brought by Cohen & Malad.

“The court has essentially ruled that the BMV can’t simply say ‘Trust us’ and throw out the case. Hoosiers now get to ask the BMV the tough questions about this debacle and get the answers they deserve,” Levin said in a statement.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?