ILNews

BMV reduces license costs that generated class-action suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana driver’s licenses will be $3.50 less expensive, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles announced Friday in a change taking immediate effect.

“We became aware of the possibility that the BMV could be overcharging Indiana drivers for an operator’s license, and reviewed existing law to determine the exact breakdown of fees that make up the cost of an operator’s license,” BMV Commissioner Scott Waddell said in a statement. “We discovered a miscalculation resulting in a $3.50 discrepancy for the six, five and four year standard operator’s licenses.

“As a result, the charge for a standard six-year operator’s license should be $17.50 instead of $21.00, a standard five-year license should be $16.00 instead of $19.50 and a four-year license should be $14.50 instead of $18.00,” Waddell said.

BMV previously acknowledged it “may have inadvertently overcharged” motorists in response to a multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit  brought by Indianapolis class counsel Cohen & Malad LLP.

That suit represents Hoosiers who paid a fee to obtain or renew an operator’s license after March 7, 2007, and claims drivers under age 75 may have been overcharged by as much as $7 per license. The case before Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch is Tammy Raab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. R. Scott Waddell, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and the Indiana BMV, 49D12-1303-PL-8769.

Welch on Friday appointed Faegre Baker Daniels LLP partner Jon Laramore to mediate. A jury trial is scheduled for Oct. 21.

Meanwhile, Cohen & Malad managing partner Irwin Levin said in a statement that mediation was taking place today. "We're always happy when our lawsuit motivates the state to follow the law. We wish they had reduced the fee more to comply with the law.” He said the firm hopes “that the BMV will agree to give back the tens of millions of dollars they have illegally charged.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Thank You
    Thank you Irwin Levin for a job well done. Now, i want my money the License Bureau took from me. I cannot believe a mistake like that was overlooked or did someone just look away?????? Im forced to pay for my mistakes....companies etc. should pay for their mistakes as well. Waiting on my check

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT