License Verification - What is considered Valid vs Invalid by insurance

[mattgi]

What are the insurers requirements to allow a rental?

A license check (from onfido) will come back with a list of outcomes:

{
  "created_at": "2015-02-02T17:21:06Z",
  "href": "/v1/checks/713b6223-9369-47eb-8cce-d7f3b3391361/reports/99d4cd0f-6665-4425-bd8b-f2d19e890262",
  "id": "99d4cd0f-6665-4425-bd8b-f2d19e890262",
  "name": "driving_record",
  "result": "consider",
  "status": "complete",
  "breakdown": {
    "driving_license": {
      "result": "clear"
    },
    "driving_restrictions": {
      "result": "clear"
    },
    "driving_violations": {
      "result": "consider"
    },
    "driving_accidents": {
      "result": "consider"
    }
  },
  "properties": {
    "full_name": "Alfred Nagy",
    "license_number": "1234567",
    "license_state": "MA",
    "license_status": "valid",
    "license_type": "non-commercial",
    "license_class": "C",
    "issued_date": "2008-01-01",
    "expiration_date": "2018-01-01",
    "restrictions": [],
    "accidents": [
      {
        "accident_date": "2010-01-01",
        "description": "property damage",
        "city": "Cambridge",
        "county": "Boston",
        "state": "MA",
        "points": null,
        "vehicle_speed": null,
        "reinstatement_date": null,
        "action_taken": "police report filed",
        "ticket_number": null,
        "enforcing_agency": "Cambridge PD",
        "jurisdiction": null,
        "severity": null,
        "violation_number": null,
        "license_plate": "1A2B3C4D",
        "fine_amount": null,
        "state_code": null,
        "acd_code": null,
        "additional_info": null,
        "injury_accident": false,
        "fatality_accident": false,
        "fatality_count": 0,
        "injury_count": 0,
        "vehicles_involved_count": 1,
        "report_number": null,
        "policy_number": null
      }
    ],
    "violations": [
      {
        "type": "conviction",
        "issued_date": "2014-01-01",
        "conviction_date": "2014-01-01",
        "description": "speeding",
        "points": 0,
        "city": "Cambridge",
        "county": "Boston",
        "state": "MA",
        "ticket_number": "ABCD1234",
        "disposition": null,
        "category": null,
        "court_name": null,
        "acd_code": null,
        "docket": null,
        "additional_info": null
      }
    ]
  }
}

What constitutes a pass / fail. @zolihonig may need to ask insurer...

[mattgi]

relevant fields (appear to have consider or clear as potential values:

  "result": "consider",
  "breakdown": {
    "driving_license": {
      "result": "clear"
    },
    "driving_restrictions": {
      "result": "clear"
    },
    "driving_violations": {
      "result": "consider"
    },
    "driving_accidents": {
      "result": "consider"
    }

[mattgi]

Need to finalize this one: default stance will be if result === 'clear' then verified. else fail.

[mattgi]

flicking on to you Zoli as Roy may be tied with cars?

[rryman3]

Let's say 4 points for the time being. I'll consult with Zurich and update. On Dec 7, 2015 3:59 AM, "Matt Ginty" notifications@github.com wrote:

flicking on to you Zoli as Roy may be tied with cars?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/clevertech/Waivecar/issues/148#issuecomment-162468546 .

[zolihonig]

@rryman3 please confirm based on our conversation today.

[mattgi]

@rryman3 I don't see a license point count.

I do see in each violation has a point deduction count though.. I assume you're thinking points remaining though, not points lost.

However, It appears that not all states (e.g. Oregon doesn't) use points to determine the status of a license or severity of an infringement so perhaps this is why most services provide the clear/consider result rather than a point count.

Not sure what you guys have discussed but should we just look at "driving_license": { "result": "clear" }, for now? I have also emailed onfido to ask for more documentation about what 'consider' actually means.

[rryman3]

4 points or less we can approve, anything higher and we don't grant access. We would also need to block access if there was no record on file/no response received, they have an international drivers license, or their record lists any DUI, DWI, Vehicular manslaughter, or reckless driving charges (even if points weren't accessed). We should provide an email address for them if they want to appeal a decline.

[mattgi]

few things we can quickly check off:

• A user account starts as pending and does not move to active until they verified their email and phone.
• A user cannot book a car until they have an active account, provide a valid credit card, and had their license cleared.
• We only support USA drivers licenses (i.e. the App requires a US state to be selected).

So this caters for most of the requirements above.

Remaining Logic:

1. check violations
   1. for each violation:
      1. if violation is 4 points or less, go to next violation.
      2. if violation is more than 4 points:
         1. if violation description includes DUI, DWI, Vehicular manslaughter, or reckless driving, return decline.
   2. return verified

Issues in doing this:

• 4 points or less per violation means that any state that does not use a point system will have null in this field and will therefore pass this test.
• I am not sure if we can (via code) determine DUI, DWI, etc. There is a description field in each violation but who knows what that will contain until we see the live results. Have asked for doco but I expect we will have to manually check licenses and then add common descriptions to an automated (coded) solution as we see them.

[zolihonig]

@mattgi if the API can't do it automatically, maybe we can manually have someone go into onfido, read the report and approve / deny.

[mattgi]

We store the report locally in our DB once it is available, so we can do this from within the website.

I think this is a good initial approach.. but it will introduce definite delay in license approvals for anyone with a violation with > 4 points. (seems reasonable)

[kristopolous]

@zolihonig This looks like an important issue, we should be doing this, I assume.

[zolihonig]

@kristopolous there is more work to be done here. Moe will catch you up on the conversations with onfido for their new sdk which utilizes facial recognition.