SR-22 in Colorado: One Form Starts the Same Three Years at Two Different Dates

The three forms that end the requirement without an SR-22

The alternatives on DR 2316 are not abstractions. Each is a real, downloadable, notarised document with its own text, and reading that text tells you what the alternative actually costs you. All three are one- to four-page PDFs on the DMV's forms index, listed by number rather than by situation, which is why almost nobody finds them.

Form DR 2100, Release From Liability (rev. 11/08/24) is the shortest route out. Its operative sentence is two lines long: "I (we) release the following person from all claims or liability as a result of the motor vehicle crash shown below. This release satisfies the requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act §42-7-301, C.R.S." It has room for three other injured parties, needs every one of their signatures, needs a parent or guardian's signature for a minor, and must be sworn before a notary.

Form DR 2090, Waiver of Security Financial Responsibility (rev. 10/23/24) is the one people misunderstand, and the form itself heads off the misunderstanding in a single sentence: "I understand that by signing this waiver, I have not given up any of my rights to collect the amount due on this claim." A claimant who signs DR 2090 waives the requirement that you deposit security with the state. They do not waive the debt. The form also insists that "Waivers from insurance companies must show that the claim has been subrogated," and that a waiver "must be signed by each person injured or by each person who received property damage."

Form DR 2567, Promissory Note Contract (rev. 11/07/24) is the instalment route, four pages opening with "This is a legal document and you may wish to consult with an attorney before signing." It fixes the damages figure by a method the state prints on the form — "This amount may be determined by agreement of the parties, or by averaging three (3) estimates, or by other methods acceptable to the parties" — and it builds in a cure period: "The Defendant(s) shall have fifteen days from the date of the mailing of the notice of default to make the delinquent payments." Miss that, and the creditor files a notarised affidavit, after which "the director shall immediately suspend the Driver's License." One last detail before you print it: "Electronic signature is not accepted, physical signature is required."

The statute behind all three is § 42-7-302, C.R.S., which lists nine exemptions from the security requirement — including the owner whose vehicle "was being operated without the owner's express or implied permission" and the operator who, though not the owner, had "an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to the operation of motor vehicles not owned by that person." That last one is the operator's policy: see non-owner SR-22 insurance.

What Colorado calls it, in four different spellings

The brief for this page asked whether Colorado actually uses the term "SR-22" in its own documentation. It does, and it cannot decide how to spell it.

The permission is statutory. Section 42-7-103(14)(b), C.R.S., defines proof of financial responsibility for the future in the limits Colorado sets, and then adds:

"For the purposes of this title, the form known as the 'SR-22' furnished to the department may be used as proof of financial responsibility in compliance with this article."

Read "may be used." The SR-22 is a permitted vehicle for proof under Colorado law, not the only one and not the thing the law requires by name. What the law requires is proof of financial responsibility for the future, defined in the same subsection as "twenty-five thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and, subject to said limit for one person, in the amount of fifty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident."

Fifteen thousand for property, not twenty-five. Colorado's property-damage floor is lower than most, and it is defined in the same breath as the SR-22 itself. The Code of Colorado Regulations reproduces both paragraphs verbatim inside rule 1 CCR 204-21, which is where most people meet them.

Colorado also names the form in order to say when you do not need it. Section 42-7-406(2)(b), covering drivers whose licence was suspended under § 42-2-127, says: "Evidence of insurance required pursuant to this subsection (2) does not require the use of the form known as the 'SR-22' or any substantially similar form." A statute that goes out of its way to exclude the SR-22 from one route knows exactly what it is doing everywhere else.

As for the spelling: the statute and the regulation write "SR-22" in quotation marks. Form DR 2316 writes SR22, closed up, five times. Form DR 2314 writes SR 22 with a space. The DMV's own SR-22 web page writes SR-22 with a hyphen throughout. Four renderings across four state documents is why searching a state site for the exact string you expect returns nothing, and why a driver told they need "an SR-22" may not recognise the "SR22" line on the form in front of them.

The DMV's SR-22 page gives the clearest short description of the mechanism the state publishes:

"The SR-22 requires the insurance company to notify the DMV of any policy cancellation. The SR-22 form is not an insurance policy."

The same page calls the filing a rider on the policy rather than a policy of its own — "When the liability insurance with the SR-22 rider is purchased, the form must be filed with the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles" — and on switching insurers it states one sentence that is the whole rule: "If you decide to change insurance companies, you must get a new SR-22 filed before the old one expires." Get that order wrong and, per the same page, "the insurance company will notify the Motor Vehicle Division that the SR-22 is no longer in effect, but is still required. Your driver license will be suspended for that reason alone." That notification is the counterpart of the withdrawal notice other states use; what an SR-26 is covers the same mechanism where it has a form number.

Every duration Colorado publishes, and which document publishes it

The table below was built for this page by reading nine state documents — four DMV forms, four DMV web pages and the statute — and recording the duration each one states for each route. No Colorado agency publishes it in this form, and no two of these documents agree on a single number.

Route into the filing	Duration the source states	Where the source anchors it	Source and date read
Crash with no insurance, acting before the suspension takes effect	Three years	"following your submission"	DR 2316 (rev. 11/21/25), read 2026-09-02
Crash with no insurance, reinstating after suspension has begun	Three years	"following restoration of your driving privileges"	DR 2316 (rev. 11/21/25), read 2026-09-02
Crash with no insurance, reinstating by affidavit	"3 years"	Not stated on the form	DR 2314 (rev. 10/30/24), read 2026-09-02
Traffic stop with no complying policy, filing instead of taking the suspension	Three years	Not stated in the rule	1 CCR 204-21 § 4, read 2026-09-02
Any route, general rule	Three years	"from the date last required", less any time unlicensed	§ 42-7-408(1)(b), C.R.S., read 2026-09-02
First alcohol offence, no accident, licence restrained once	Length of the restraint, "up to a maximum of three years"	"at the time the driver reinstates"	§ 42-7-408(1)(c)(I), C.R.S., read 2026-09-02
BAC .08 or higher, first offence	"9 months (3 years if an accident or high BAC was involved)"	Not stated	DMV Reinstatement FAQ, read 2026-09-02
BAC .08 or higher, second or third offence	"SR-22 insurance for 3 years"	Not stated	DMV Reinstatement FAQ, read 2026-09-02
Under-21, BAC .02 to .05, second or third offence	"SR-22 insurance for 6 to 12 months"	Not stated	DMV Reinstatement FAQ, read 2026-09-02
Under-21 DUI or DWAI conviction	"SR-22 insurance for 1 to 3 years"	Not stated	DMV Reinstatement FAQ, read 2026-09-02
Refusal of a chemical test	"SR-22 insurance for 1 to 3 years"	Not stated	DMV Reinstatement FAQ, read 2026-09-02
Persistent Drunk Driver designation	"at least two years"	Not stated	DMV Alcohol and DUI page, read 2026-09-02
Registered owner, after two alcohol offences by a non-owner driver	Three years	Not stated	§ 42-7-406(1.5)(b), C.R.S., read 2026-09-02

Three observations from that table that none of its sources make.

Colorado's forms say three years; Colorado's web pages do not. Every printed form in the reinstatement packet states a flat three years. The Reinstatement FAQ, on the same agency's own site, publishes five different periods depending on the offence, and the alcohol and DUI page summarises the whole range in one sentence: "You generally must maintain this continuously for 9 months to 3 years, depending on your offense." A driver who reads only the form they were handed can over-plan by more than two years; a driver who reads only the web page will under-plan if their case involved a crash. Both documents are the DMV's.

The statute explains the split, and no form mentions the statute. Section 42-7-408(1)(b) sets the general rule at "three years from the date last required." Then § 42-7-408(1)(c)(I) carves out the single alcohol offence with no accident: proof "shall be required to be maintained only for as long as the insured's driving privilege is ordered to be under restraint, up to a maximum of three years. The time period for maintaining the future proof of liability insurance shall begin at the time the driver reinstates his or her driving privilege." A first offence at BAC .08 or higher carries a nine-month revocation, which is why the FAQ says nine months. The arithmetic is ours, and the two sentences sit awkwardly together — one measures the period by the restraint, the other starts it after the restraint has ended — but the FAQ figures line up with them exactly.

Colorado credits time you were not licensed, which almost no state does. The same subsection ends: "if during such three-year period the insured has not been licensed to drive pursuant to this title, the insured shall be credited with the nonlicensed time toward the three-year period." Most states either restart the clock or freeze it when you surrender a licence. Colorado runs it. Section 42-7-408(6) does the same thing across state lines: get a licence elsewhere and "the director shall suspend the requirement for proof of financial responsibility for the future until such time as the former resident has made application for a new Colorado license" — a suspension of the obligation, not an escape from it, because coming back reinstates it "until such time as the original requirement to maintain proof of financial responsibility for the future has expired." That is the rule to read before you move to another state with an SR-22.

Colorado escalates the suspension, not the fee. On the traffic-stop route the Hearings Division states: "On a second suspension, your driving privileges will be suspended for four months, and on a third or subsequent suspension, your driving privileges will be suspended for eight months." The reinstatement fee does not move with it. Form DR 2870, the Application for Reinstatement, prints one figure for everyone: "Reinstatement fee $95.00. An additional $25.00 fee is required if reinstating from a DUI offense." So a third insurance suspension costs the same $95 as a first and costs eight months of driving instead. Anyone comparing states by reinstatement fee alone is reading the cheaper half of Colorado's penalty.

Two more things DR 2870 says: "Allow 20 business days for processing," and "a canceled check does not mean your reinstatement is complete. We will mail you a Letter of Clearance when your reinstatement is complete." The cleared payment is not the clearance. And the Reinstatement Center adds the sentence that costs people the most time of any on this page: "The Division of Motor Vehicles does not notify drivers when their suspension or revocation period has ended." You have to go and look.

The seven-day window after a traffic stop

This is the route with the shortest fuse in Colorado and the one least often described accurately. The Department of Revenue Hearings Division sets it out under the Compulsory Insurance Law, § 42-4-1409, C.R.S.:

"If you are stopped by an officer and cannot demonstrate valid insurance at the time of the stop, you may be served with an Affidavit and Notice of Suspension."

From service, you have seven days, and three options: provide proof of insurance as it stood at the time of the offence, obtain SR22 insurance, or request a hearing. The Division is blunt about the default: "If you do not provide anything to the DMV and/or do not request a hearing, your license will be suspended on the 8th day."

Two details in that paragraph change what a driver should do. A timely hearing request "may be granted a temporary permit which would let you drive until the day of the hearing" — so the hearing is not only a defence, it is a way to keep driving in the meantime. And "proof of current insurance is required to request a hearing", which means the hearing route is closed to anyone still uninsured. The hearing itself is narrow: "The only issue at the hearing is whether you had a valid insurance policy in effect on the day you were driving."

The regulation describes the same choice as an election rather than a penalty. Rule 1 CCR 204-21 § 4 states: "Section 42-2-127.7, C.R.S. allows for suspension of a person's driving privilege if the person is unable to provide evidence of a complying policy when contacted by law enforcement. In order to avoid a suspension, the driver may file proof of financial responsibility for the future for three years." Three years of filing, taken voluntarily, to avoid a suspension. That is the trade, and it is worth doing the arithmetic on before accepting it.

The crash route runs on a longer fuse and a stricter one. Section 42-7-301 gives the director fifteen days from receipt of the accident report to tell you the requirement exists, sixty days to send the formal notice by first-class mail, and then twenty days from the mailing of that notice for you to act — "within twenty days after the mailing of such notice by the director." Everything on DR 2316's Section A has to happen inside that twenty-day window; miss it and you are on Section B, with the later anchor. The security the same section demands is capped: "which in no event shall exceed the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars." And presenting the wrong paper has its own price — § 42-7-301.5 makes an altered or counterfeit insurance card a violation of § 18-5-104, for which "the minimum fine shall be one thousand dollars."

The database that can show you as uninsured when you are not

Colorado does not wait for a report. Since 1997 it has run the Motorist Insurance Identification Database, and rule 1 CCR 204-21 is the document that describes how it works — including, in its own words, how it goes wrong.

Insurers must report "new policies issued and canceled policies before the seventh working day after the last date of the week reported on", transmitting to a contracted Designated Agent in a fixed electronic format, encrypted with "Pretty Good Privacy ('PGP') using at least a 1024-bit RSA public key and a 128-bit AES key." Section 42-7-604(5)(c)(II), C.R.S., obliges the department to "provide a reasonable and adequate quality control process to ensure the accurate input of data, including the vehicle identification numbers and insurance information."

It does not always work, and the rule says so. Under the heading Error reporting:

"Until it is corrected, a rejected record may be visible to law enforcement as uninsured."

That is the state's own admission that a fully insured driver can appear uninsured on a roadside query because an insurer's file was rejected. There is a second version of the same failure: if you show a letter or card that the database does not confirm, the record is marked insured only temporarily, and "if the information, as required above, is not transmitted to the Designated Agent by the insurance company within 30 days from the date the request is sent, the record will again be marked as not insured." The remedy in both cases is on you: get your insurer to confirm the transmission, not merely the policy. On what happens when a gap is treated as real, see what happens if you don't file on time.

The rule also exempts sixteen plate types from tracking altogether — bus, dealer, farm, special mobile equipment and machinery, special use, trailer, truck tractor and gross-vehicle-weight plates, plus fleet, county, city, rental, state, broadcast and government plates — because the aim is "to minimize the opportunity for owners of vehicles insured pursuant to a commercial policy from receiving a citation for no insurance." If a commercially plated vehicle in your household has ever generated an insurance notice, that list is the reason it should not have, and it marks the boundary between this system and commercial SR-22 filings for work vehicles.

Insurers that fail to report are fined under the rule's section 9: "A fine of $250 per day shall be assessed the non-compliant insurance company", with referral to the Insurance Commissioner. It is one of the few numbers in this system that falls on the insurer rather than the driver.

The owner who never drove, and the ticket that becomes a revocation

Two routes on the Hearings Division's list have nothing to do with your own driving record, and both carry three years of filing or worse.

The registered owner of a car used in two alcohol offences by someone else. The Division describes it as applying where "a driver, who has no ownership interest in the vehicle, is involved in two or more independent alcohol offenses while driving the owner's vehicle", with an alcohol offence defined as a refused chemical test or a result "at or over .08 as an adult or at or over .02 as a minor." The statute is tighter than the summary. Section 42-7-406(1.5)(a) applies where the driver "was driving the same vehicle in two or more of such offenses but did not own such vehicle" — the same vehicle, not merely a vehicle you happen to own. The director then mails the owner a notice which must say, in the statute's words, that "because of the risks to the public connected with the use of the vehicle in alcohol-related driving violations, it is necessary for the motor vehicle owner to establish proof of financial responsibility," and that "within thirty days after the date of mailing of the notice, the owner is required to file proof of financial responsibility for the future pursuant to the requirements of section 42-7-408 or to request a hearing regarding the applicability of this requirement to the owner." Fail to do either and the department suspends the owner's licence. The filing runs three years under § 42-7-406(1.5)(b).

Two carve-outs sit at the end of the subsection, and they tell you who the rule is really aimed at. It does not apply to a vehicle "rented from a person, firm, corporation, or other business entity whose primary business is the rental of motor vehicles," nor to a loaner from a repair facility. Rental fleets and courtesy cars are out. Private owners who lend to the same person twice are in. If you lend a car to the same person twice, this is your rule, not theirs.

A conviction while you were required to file. This one escalates a suspension into a revocation: "If you receive a traffic ticket while you are suspended for not carrying SR22 insurance and are convicted of that traffic offense, your driving privileges will be revoked." And the date that matters is not the one you would guess — "The revocation is for one year from the conviction date, not the violation date." A citation fought for eight months therefore pushes the year of revocation eight months into the future rather than running it down. That is the opposite of how delay usually works, and it is the reason a lapse in the filing is worth more attention than a lapse in anything else. Driving at all in that state is charged separately: § 42-7-422 makes it "a class A traffic infraction" to drive while restoration is contingent on proof of financial responsibility. See how long you need an SR-22 for how other states handle a violation inside the window.

There is one narrow exception to the Division's flat statement that no driving privileges can be granted during an insurance suspension, and it is not where you would expect. The Reinstatement FAQ describes a Probationary Driver License available "if your license is suspended for excessive points or (not alcohol/DUIs)", restricted to driving "to and from work", obtained by emailing the Hearings Division. The requirements are the point: "You will need to provide a letter of employment, proof of SR-22 insurance, and pay a $6.00 fee." So in Colorado the SR-22 is not only a consequence of an insurance offence — it is the price of a hardship licence for a suspension that had nothing to do with insurance. The FAQ closes that paragraph with a warning worth quoting in full: "If a police officer pulls you over while driving outside of your work restrictions, your probationary license will be immediately confiscated."

How the filing ends, and what the certificate has to cover

One more form belongs in the packet before the exits. Form DR 2598, Certification (rev. 05/16/23) is a one-page list of nine statements you must initial individually before privileges are restored "following my revocation either for driving with too much alcohol in my system or for refusing to cooperate with the chemical testing process." The first is a legal warning many drivers do not know: "By law, I can be considered to be driving even if the vehicle's engine is not running and the vehicle is stationary." The form ends with the instruction that causes most rejections: "In addition to your signature and date, you must initial all items above for this form to be accepted."

Two operational rules govern the certificate itself. Section 42-7-410(2) provides that "the director shall not accept any certificate unless the same covers all motor vehicles registered in the name of the person furnishing such proof as owner" — buy a car during the filing period and the certificate has to be extended before you register it. And § 42-7-411(1) states that where the certificate covers only vehicles you own, "it is unlawful for such person to operate any motor vehicle not owned by that person or not covered by such certificate." That is the difference between an owner's policy and an operator's policy stated as a prohibition rather than a coverage note; whether an SR-22 covers any car you drive sets out how other states word it.

Getting out is a closed list, not a date. Section 42-7-421(1) gives the director exactly three grounds to release proof: the period has run with no qualifying conviction, the person has died or become permanently incapable of driving, or the person surrenders their licence. Nothing about hardship, moving, selling the car, or a clean record on its own. And the third ground carries a trap no form mentions: the director must not release proof "in the event the director has received notice that such person has within the period of three months immediately preceding been involved as a driver in any motor vehicle accident." Three months, regardless of fault. Section 42-7-421(2) closes the loop — apply again within the original period and the application "shall be refused unless the applicant establishes such proof for the remainder of such period."

What I could not verify

The current text of title 42 from the state's own server. Colorado publishes its statutes through leg.colorado.gov, which returned HTTP 403 to this server on every browse page and on the Title 42 PDF, including after the redirect to content.leg.colorado.gov. Every statutory quotation on this page therefore comes from the Internet Archive capture of 28 January 2026 of that same PDF — the Office of Legislative Legal Services' Colorado Revised Statutes 2024 printout, which carries the words "Uncertified Printout" on every page. It is the state's own document, it is a year old, and it is not certified. Section numbers are given so you can quote them to the DMV or to a lawyer.

Whether a 2025 or 2026 edition changes any of this. The 2024 printout is the most recent edition this server could open. Colorado amends title 42 most years. Nothing on this page should be treated as reflecting a 2025 or 2026 session amendment.

The Hearings Division summary as authority. The page carries its own disclaimer: "This summary was prepared by the Department of Revenue Hearing Division and should be used as a reference only. Interested parties should refer to the full text of the law and seek legal counsel before drawing conclusions." Every quotation from it on this page is the agency's description of its own practice, which is worth a great deal and is not the statute.

Which document governs when the form and the FAQ disagree. Both are published by the Division of Motor Vehicles. The statute supports the shorter periods for single alcohol offences, and the forms state three years flat. Which one a clerk applies to a particular file is an operational fact this page cannot settle. Ask Driver Control on (303) 205-5613, the number printed on DR 2316, DR 2598 and DR 2870, and ask for your end date in writing.

Whether the DR 2316 anchor split is deliberate. The two start dates are printed on the same form and this page reports them as printed. Whether the Division intends a driver who files early to finish early, or whether Section A's wording is simply loose, is not something the form says.

Why 1 CCR 204-21 cites a repealed statute. The rule's list of acceptable proof is headed "acceptable methods to show that a driver had a complying policy in effect pursuant to Section 42-7-605, C.R.S." Section 42-7-605 was repealed effective 1 July 2006; the rule states its own effective date as 1 January 2007. The list itself is unambiguous and is quoted above. Why it points at a section that had already been repealed six months earlier is not explained anywhere this page could find.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does an SR-22 last in Colorado? It depends which state document you read, and this page prints all of them rather than picking one. Every printed DMV form says three years: DR 2316 says it twice, DR 2314 says "3 years", and rule 1 CCR 204-21 says three years for the traffic-stop route. The DMV's own Reinstatement FAQ publishes shorter periods for several alcohol offences — nine months for a first offence at BAC .08 or higher with no accident, six to twelve months for a second or third under-21 offence, one to three years for a refusal — and § 42-7-408(1)(c)(I) supports them by tying the period to the length of the restraint, "up to a maximum of three years." The general rule in § 42-7-408(1)(b) is three years "from the date last required." Plan on three years and get your own end date from the DMV in writing.

Does it matter whether I file the SR-22 before or after the suspension starts? Yes, and this is the finding this page is built on. Form DR 2316 Section A, for a driver acting before the effective date of the suspension, says to "maintain the SR22 continuously for three years following your submission." Section B, for a driver reinstating afterwards, says to maintain it "for three years following restoration of your driving privileges." Restoration comes after the suspension has run and after the twenty business days DR 2870 asks you to allow for processing, so the three years measured from submission ends earlier than the three years measured from restoration. Section A only works inside the twenty days § 42-7-301(3)(a) gives you after the director's notice is mailed.

Can I get out of the filing altogether? Sometimes, and DR 2316 lists the ways before it lists the SR-22. Show that a liability policy was in force and covered the vehicle at the time of the accident; file a notarised Release from Liability (Form DR 2100), which states on its face that it "satisfies the requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act §42-7-301, C.R.S."; or show that you were "financially adjudicated not liable for damages in a civil lawsuit." A claimant can also sign Form DR 2090 waiving the security requirement, though the form warns the signer that they have "not given up any of my rights to collect the amount due on this claim." And if more than three years have passed since the accident, Section B lets you reinstate on Form DR 2314 by affidavit that no one has brought an action against you.

What does Colorado charge to reinstate? Form DR 2870, the Application for Reinstatement, prints: "Reinstatement fee $95.00. An additional $25.00 fee is required if reinstating from a DUI offense." The Reinstatement FAQ gives the total for a refusal case as "$120 total". Payment is by check or money order made out to "Department of Revenue", and the form says "Do not send cash." Two timing details matter more than the amount: allow twenty business days for processing, and "a canceled check does not mean your reinstatement is complete. We will mail you a Letter of Clearance when your reinstatement is complete." A probationary licence, where one is available, carries a separate $6.00 fee. None of these figures is an insurance premium; all were read on 2 September 2026.

Does Colorado really call it an SR-22? Yes, and in four spellings. Section 42-7-103(14)(b), C.R.S., refers to "the form known as the 'SR-22' furnished to the department" and says it "may be used as proof of financial responsibility" — permitted, not mandated — and rule 1 CCR 204-21 reproduces that sentence word for word. Form DR 2316 writes SR22 without a hyphen, Form DR 2314 writes SR 22 with a space, and the DMV's web page writes SR-22. Colorado also names the form to exclude it: § 42-7-406(2)(b) says evidence of insurance on one reinstatement route "does not require the use of the form known as the 'SR-22' or any substantially similar form."

What happens if I switch insurers or let the filing lapse? The DMV states the sequencing rule in one line: "If you decide to change insurance companies, you must get a new SR-22 filed before the old one expires." Let it lapse and "the insurance company will notify the Motor Vehicle Division that the SR-22 is no longer in effect, but is still required. Your driver license will be suspended for that reason alone." Worse, if you are then convicted of a traffic offence committed while suspended for that reason, the Hearings Division says your privileges are revoked for one year "from the conviction date, not the violation date." A lapse is not the only way to look uninsured, either: rule 1 CCR 204-21 warns that where an insurer's electronic record is rejected, "until it is corrected, a rejected record may be visible to law enforcement as uninsured."

What does an SR-22 cost in Colorado, and which part of it can I check? This page names no insurer and publishes no rate, because no insurer publishes a price for an individual record and an average built from other drivers is not a quote for yours. What is worth knowing about the money in Colorado is structural. Filing before the suspension takes effect can end the three years months sooner than filing after, which is available to nobody who does not know DR 2316 exists. Items 1 to 3 of that form, and Forms DR 2100, DR 2090 and DR 2567, may remove the requirement entirely. If your case is a single alcohol offence with no accident, the statute ties the period to the length of your restraint rather than to a flat three years, and time you spend unlicensed is credited against it. And the state's own fee is a flat $95, plus $25 on a DUI reinstatement, and does not rise with repeat suspensions — the escalation is in months off the road. On the policy itself, take three quotes with your actual garaging address, say which route triggered the filing, and ask for the price of the policy and the insurer's filing charge as two separate numbers.