The page stated that Maine uses a single combined liability limit of $125,000, attributed to an insurance brokerage. That was wrong, and wrong in a way that could cost money: a driver buying to a combined limit could file a policy that does not meet the state requirement. Maine uses split limits, set by 29-A M.R.S. §1605(1)(C). The $125,000 figure belongs to §1611, which covers rental trucks of 26,000 pounds or less rented for fewer than 30 days. The page was corrected against the statute.
The page said SR-22A is Georgia's designation for the non-owner filing. It is not, and the error could send a driver who owns no vehicle to ask for the wrong form. Georgia DDS distinguishes the two certificates by the violation: the SR-22A is what a second or subsequent no-insurance conviction requires, and it has its own non-owner version. The page and its meta description were rewritten around what DDS publishes.
The page described Minnesota's mandatory no-fault minimum as "$40,000 total, split into $30,000 for injuries to one person and $60,000 in some structures," attributed to an insurance brokerage. That ran two separate coverages together and got the structure wrong. No-fault benefits under Minn. Stat. § 65B.44 subd. 1 are $40,000 per person, split $20,000 medical and $20,000 for everything else; the 30/60/10 figures belong to residual liability under § 65B.49 subd. 3. Both statutes were read at source and are now linked.
The page pointed drivers who need an SR-22 and drive an employer's vehicle at "hired and non-owned auto" liability, sourced to an insurance agency. That coverage is bought by businesses for the opposite situation — employees driving their own or rented vehicles for work. The recommendation was removed and not replaced: no admissible source identifies which policy satisfies a personal SR-22 for a driver whose only driving is in an employer-owned vehicle.
The page was titled "Cheapest SR-22 Insurance in Michigan" and stated that the filing "runs three years." Michigan does not use an SR-22 at all, and the official-sources box already said so while the body and the FAQ said the opposite — and the FAQ is what this site emits as structured data, so the wrong answer was the machine-readable one. The three-year figure came from a comparison site filling in a fifty-state table. The page was retitled and rewritten against the Secretary of State's own page on financial-responsibility restricted licences.
The page was titled "Cheapest SR-22 Insurance in New York," gave a three-year filing period and put the filing fee in a $15–$30 range. New York has not required proof of financial responsibility since 1 February 1957, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 346. The three-year figure came from two New York agencies that sell SR-22 policies; the fee had no source at all. The official-sources box already said the state does not use an SR-22 while the body and FAQ said the opposite, so — again — the wrong answer was the machine-readable one.
The page named the SR-21 as New Jersey's replacement for the SR-22. It is not one. Form SR-1 is a Motor Vehicle Accident Report, and the block labelled NEW JERSEY SR-21 is a detachable section of it, completed by the driver about one crash. New Jersey requires no SR-22 and publishes no continuing substitute; ordinary proof is the New Jersey Insurance Identification Card. On 20 August 2026 three passages left over from this correction — two of them in the FAQ, which the site publishes as structured data — were found still describing the SR-21 as an insurer-filed equivalent, and were rewritten.
The page stated that North Carolina's SR-22 "is consistently cited at around three years across independent insurance specialists," attributed to two insurance marketing sites. The duration was right; the instrument was not. North Carolina issues no SR-22 — the NCDMV uses the DL-123 and the FS-1 — and the three-year obligation comes from N.C.G.S. § 20-19(k). The page was rewritten against the statute and the agency.
The page repeated the widely published claim that Oklahoma requires an SR-22 for three years, sourced to insurance marketing sites. Oklahoma Statutes Title 47 was read directly: the certificate-of-insurance sections were repealed by Laws 2009, c. 62, § 41, effective 1 November 2009, and § 47-7-335 contains no three-year clause. The page was rewritten around the security verification form the state actually uses.
The page reported that an Illinois SR-22 lapse is "generally understood to restart" the three-year period, and the claim reached the meta description. The Secretary of State's own page does not say that; it describes a suspension that remains in force until the filing is reinstated, which is a different claim with a different consequence. The restart claim was withdrawn from the body, the FAQ and the meta description.
The page answered that a lapse restarts the three-year clock, sourced to "consumer legal guidance." Nothing Wisconsin publishes supports that. Wis. Stat. § 344.40(1)(a) describes a suspension that runs until proof is furnished again. Separately, the page had flagged the filing period as unverified because the state DOT site would not load; it loaded from a different connection and was read at source — three years from reinstatement eligibility, per Wis. Stat. § 344.01(2)(d) — along with an exception the site had missed: no SR-22 is required where the only reason for revocation is a first-offence OWI or non-compliance with a Driver Safety Plan.
The page presented Missouri as a case of conflicting sources — three years from the department, two from an insurance brokerage — and declined to resolve it. Both figures are the Missouri DOR's own, published on the same page: three years for the two no-insurance routes, two years for an unpaid court judgment. The page now sets out all three routes with the DOR's wording and its three different start dates.
For records predating the April 2025 rule change, the page gave only one of Ohio's two periods — three years for a non-compliance suspension — and omitted the five-year period that applies to a second or subsequent offence added within five years. The omission understated the requirement for repeat offenders. Both periods are now stated.
The page reviewed SafeAuto as a live option and described its advertised pricing as worth pursuing. It was not a live option: the same review site quoted for SafeAuto's AM Best status also reported that the company had stopped writing new policies — the secondary line was taken and the headline missed. The review was removed rather than patched. The page now states that the standalone product is no longer sold and that Direct Auto carries what SafeAuto used to.
The comparison treated both companies as live options and concluded that SafeAuto's advertised pricing was worth pursuing, sending readers on a filing deadline to a brand they could not buy from. Its opening also called SafeAuto "the cheaper option" at around $156 a month against The General at about $104 a month — $156 is not less than $104, and the page contradicted its own arithmetic in its first sentence. Both figures and the recommendation were removed.
The page quoted The General's own site as saying drivers "should expect to pay about $25 in fees when filing the SR-22 form." That sentence was not on the company's SR-22 page when it was rechecked; the page says only that a filing fee or premium surcharge may apply and varies by state. The quotation was replaced with the company's actual wording. The same page had quoted only the at-fault-accident side of a violation-by-violation comparison, where The General came out above market, and omitted the DUI side, where it came out below — since most SR-22 requirements follow a DUI, that pointed readers the wrong way.
The page claimed that filing an SR-22 on a motorcycle policy is cheaper than filing it on a car policy, on the authority of an insurance agency's consumer guidance. No admissible source supports the claim, and it was removed rather than reattributed. The page also rendered Allstate's wording as riders being "beholden to the same laws"; the source says "held to the same laws," and the quotation was corrected.
The page framed cross-state filing as a scarcity problem — finding an insurer willing to file at all — on an insurance agency's copy. Progressive and GEICO both describe it differently in their own published guidance: filing across state lines is common, and the real constraint is that the insurer must be licensed in the state where the requirement originated. The section was rewritten on the insurers' own wording.
The page said only that Kentucky's position could not be confirmed from the state's own site. Kentucky DRIVE's mandatory-insurance and licence-reinstatement pages were then read and contain no mention of an SR-22 at all; the page was updated to report that finding rather than an absence of confirmation.
The page rested its central claim — that Pennsylvania does not use the SR-22 certificate system — on Clearsurance, a review aggregator. A legal requirement needs a state source, and the claim was re-sourced to the PennDOT insurance overview, read at source.
Washington's minimum liability limits were attributed to an insurance brokerage. The figures were correct but the source was not: a legal minimum should come from the law, and they were re-sourced to RCW 46.29.490(2)(b), read at source.
A figure of "three years or more" for how long a violation stays on a driving record was attributed to a Texas insurance agency — a source class this site does not use — and was not verifiable state by state. It was removed from the body, and on 20 August 2026 from the FAQ answer that had kept repeating it.
A 200% to 300% Wisconsin rate-increase range came from a criminal defence firm's marketing page — an advertiser to OWI defendants, not a rate survey. The range was removed from the body and from the Wisconsin FAQ answer, with no replacement figure.
The zero-tolerance section cited a personal-injury law firm's summary of one state's statute as evidence that the pattern holds in every state. The source is not one this site accepts and the inference was too broad; the citation was removed and the page now directs readers to their own state's statute or DMV.
Individual customer comments quoted from Yelp, WalletHub and Trustpilot were used to characterise what reviewers said about Freeway, and complaints about unexpected fees were used to justify asking for a full cost breakdown. Individual reviews are not evidence here; the quotations were removed and the advice now rests on the broker structure, which any reader can verify.
The credit section quoted an insurance agency's advice on improving a credit score. Generic credit advice is outside what this site sources, and the quotation was removed.