by redsoxrc » Sat Feb 14, 2009 08:08 pm
I have a question. Lets say my son is driving around, and has had his license for 3 months. He is driving with his 3 teenage friends, whos parents know that they are with the driver but don't mind. If the driver were to get in a wreck, who his parents be liable or would the insurance company be liable and to what extent?
pretty much what i am asking is if insurance companies cover your accidents when you break a secondary offense.
pretty much what i am asking is if insurance companies cover your accidents when you break a secondary offense.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 05:52 pm Post Subject:
Rephrase:
The driver has has his license for 3 months. Under Washington laws, no driver is allowed to have non-adults in their car for the first 6 months the driver has his license.
The drivers 6 months isn't up yet, but he choses to drive non-adults around anyway, which is a secondary offense. If he were to get in a wreck while driving, would the insurance company cover things, or would they not since the driver is breaking the law while driving around.
The question is does the insurance company cover wrecks and accidents when the driver is breaking a secondary offense while driving, or would they treat it like any other wreck
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 01:02 am Post Subject:
i dont think the parents are liable , but im not sure.
anyone else know?
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 01:37 am Post Subject:
I think the parents would be liable if the child is under 18.
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 09:30 am Post Subject:
Hi rickrissss012,
I believe you have some answers within your questions!
If under the Washington laws there's a 6 months-restriction for the driver to carry non-adults, then I don't think there's a way out of this problem.
I guess the insurance companies issue policies that run in accordance with these state guidelines. So why should there be an exception in your case!
Roddick
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 02:14 pm Post Subject:
I guess the insurance companies issue policies that run in accordance with these state guidelines. So why should there be an exception in your case!
Driving Under the Influence is illegal too but we pay claims for drunk drivers all the time. Your claim will be covered, but depending on your company they may require you to backdate add him to your policy. (If you haven't already)
You should list him as a driver to avoid issues.
You should also list him as a driver so that your insurance company can collect the right premium for him. (3mos and already an accident)
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:17 pm Post Subject:
Has anyone heard of a 'Junior License' ( I think it's called)? There are a few of my son's friends, who are 16 years old, but have some kind of 'restriction' on their DL that they can't drive at night
Never heard of it. But if it's true;It's going to cause lots of trouble. Do you think at this age kids can handle the car?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 06:36 am Post Subject:
Driving Under the Influence is illegal too but we pay claims for drunk drivers all the time.
Quite so and therefore the OP might get coverage. However, I personally feel that when the policy holder knowingly is breaking the law the insurer mustn't pay.
Op, even if you receive the coverage you should refrain the teenager from going around driving when he is not allowed. He might face harder consequences like losing his driving privileges for breaking the laws. You as a parent need to guide him in the right direction.
but depending on your company they may require you to backdate add him to your policy.
Can you do this? As far I know you can't actually backdate a policy.
~Jeremy
Add your comment