| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: My son was driving |
|
|
| My son was driving another friend's vehicle. He pulled out of a parking space and did not see the low vehicle beside him and swiped it. He found out later that the car he was driving had no insurance and they wanted my son's insurance to cover that vehicle. Can that be done? Because he ended up in court and he was released from the claim but my son's insurance went against his advise to not pay the claim and paid it anyway .Then they raised his rates.How can they do that. His rates got so high he lost it because he could not pay it. |
|
hummingbird
Senior member
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 609
3.49 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your son was operating the vehicle... I think it should be clear that he can be held responsible for his actions.
In most states, the own of the vehicle will be primary as they assume the risk of the driver they allowed to operate the vehicle. But even then, the driver is also responsible, it's just that his legal liability is in excess of the owners. In some states, the driver is primary and the owner cannot be held liable in most cases.
Regardless, if the owner of the vehicle does not have insurance, your son's insurance would then _protect your son's interest_ in the use of the vehicle and pay the claim.
Courts don't "release" people from liability. I'm guessing perhaps your son was issued a citation and that was dismissed?
People cannot control the insurance companies. If they could, very few claims would get paid. But those same people who don't want their carriers to pay would probably still want the carrier to pay for their defense when a suit was filed against then and/or the judgement against them once they lost. See my point? Your son caused the damage to the other vehicle, he is legally liable for that damage, so his carrier paid the claim. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5194
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
285.39 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
tcope has answered your question fully but I'd like to throw a couple of other points in as well...
yes, of course | Quote: | | ...Because he ended up in court |
why? why would he be in court? Did he leave the scene? or do you mean the owner of the vehicle was in court? | Quote: | | but my son's insurance went against his advise to not pay the claim and paid it anyway . |
(as tcope mentioned) you, me or no one can just tell their insurance company not to pay a claim..they are contractually and legally bound to cover certain things (this amoung them, your son driving an uninsured vehicle and damaging an innocently parked car)...and why wouldn't you (or your son) want them to? I'm really confused by that, he hit the parked car right? the parked car did nothing wrong correct? you son (not the owner of the vehicle) made a mistake, and caused damage to another why would you (or son) not feel a legal and moral obligation to repair this poor persons vehicle? I don't understand your line of thought here (telling or advising his ins company not to pay for the damages) I understand that the vehicle should've been insured and had it been that policy would've paid the damage, but it wasn't insured, and your son did cause the damage...please explain your thought process here... | Quote: | | Then they raised his rates.How can they do that. |
Because he had an 'at fault' accident that they had to pay out for....and ''if'' he left the scene, that would (in some states and companies) add even more insurance 'points'..... | Quote: | | His rates got so high he lost it because he could not pay it |
I'm guessing this wasn't the only accident/claim, or ticket, because the first rate increase for a violation shouldn't have been more than 20-25%....does this mean hummingbird that he is now driving uninsured? If so, he is flirting with disaster! seriously, and if he is a minor or your name is ANYWHERE near the title to his vehicle so are you...You wouldn't belive the number of young people that I have seen with huge judgements against them that they have to carry for years until it's paid off...jobs they can't get, I could go on and on the damage this can cause in a persons life, and some parents, also losing financially what they have worked and built most of their lives for, just by a child getting involved in an accident and being uninsured....something to think about...
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would think that he would be responsible, and if he did not have insurance and he was driving a car without insurance, I would expect him to pay for my damages out of his pocket. He was driving, period........ he is responsible.
How many people would just say "oh well, not my problem" if it were this easy, god help us who do carry insurance, can you imagine what our rates would be like just to cover the uninsured person who says, "I am going to drive regardless, insurance or no insurance". I don't think that is even fair to the rest of the insured world to even think that way. Driving is a privilidge and along with that privilidge comes responsibility like car insurance, registration, plates, having a valid license and Yes, having the common sense to know if the car or vehicle that you are driving or riding in has insurance on it also. You would not walk around pulling the trigger on a pistol, saying, "Gee, wonder if there are any bullets in this gun? Click, Click, Booooooooooooooom!" Same deal to me, if you are going to operate it, you better know where the insurance cards and financial information is on the vehicle in case of an accident or you get pulled over by the police. If you just jump in and go, you get what you deserve. This mindset of mine comes from paying "INSURANCE"
I am sorry to see that your son's insurance went up to the point of not being able to afford it and I know the feeling, I had an increase this year and did not even have a claim, in fact, have not had a claim in over 12 years and my rates got raised. I am just a little perturbed with my insurance company right now over this. Maybe your son could shop around and see what other companies have out there and get a liability policy that would not cost as much. As mentioned above, it will depend on his driving record and what else he has on his license. The insurance industry is one that will make you pay the piper, that is for sure.
I am not being mean, just direct. |
|
goodnatured
Senior member
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 1212
0.07 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thats what I mean. I think there should be limits set on what insurance companies are allowed to charge people.I don't think it should be legal to raise rates on people who have never even made a claim. My son was behind the wheel but the owner was there beside him and told him he could drive.No my son has insurance now with another company but it is all he is able to pay he has nothing left after.The car he hit was someone he knew also.That pulled into the space after he got nehind the wheel.I am jusy seeing an unfortunate accident.Like he says he is learning the hard way the ways of insurance. |
|
hummingbird
Senior member
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 609
3.49 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately this will be a lessoned learn by your son, hopefully he does learn from it, too bad his insurance will be raised because of it. I feel bad that you are worried so about it, I posted some things on your other thread in reference to his insurance, hopefully there will be a cheaper solution for him. How much damage was actually done? Just curious, I guess since it was already reported it really does not matter, I just wonder if he could have taken care of the damage out of pocket and kept the insurance company out of the equation he may have been better off, I hope that you find a solution some how, some way for you son to be able to drive, he has to drive to work to pay his bills, hang in there I am sure that a solution will be worked out here, too many good heads here full of ideas not to. |
|
goodnatured
Senior member
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 1212
0.07 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thats what I mean. I think there should be limits set on what insurance companies are allowed to charge people. |
Insurance companies are required to submit rate increases to the state for approval. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5194
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
285.39 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thats what I mean. I think there should be limits set on what insurance companies are allowed to charge people |
There are!
| Quote: | | I don't think it should be legal to raise rates on people who have never even made a claim. |
did you say in some other threads that your son has some tickets and also hit a deer?
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He is 21 soon to be 22 next month. As with a lot of teens when he started driving he got a few tickets ,much to our dismay.A couple of minor mishaps also.Yes, he also hit a deer as we live in a rural area of Ky.He has not gotten a ticket for a while now so I am assuming that all but maybe one have fallen off his driving record. I am really hoping that his rates will drop some when he goes to renew. He did all this years ago but seems to be still effecting his rates.He did switch insurance companies as the one we all had got to expensive for him. It took him a while to learn the hard way about the tickets. I got a ticket once about a yr ago.I was driving 72 in a 55.I was heart sick .I had on a new pair of shoes and could not get the feel of the gas peddle. Before I realized it there was the cop with the lights spinning. I certainly could not afford that, so I went and told them my reason. Because I have a clean driving record no tickets ever ,they forgave it! I am encourageing him to go back to get a new quote from our insurance agency. Maybe it will be cheaper now. |
|
hummingbird
Senior member
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 609
3.49 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Insurance companies are required to submit rate increases to the state for approval. |
Then why does the state allow low income families who need their cars and insurance to have to pay so much for that privilige. I liked it better better before it was a law you had to have insurance. |
|
hummingbird
Senior member
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 609
3.49 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When was automobile insurance not required.... 1940? 
The state allows it because the insurance industry pays lobbiest millions of dollars every year to influence polititians to do what they want. I never said it was fair.
If you ran an insurance company and your job dependend on making the most money, wouldn't you do the same?
Also, there is competition out there. That keeps prices lower.
But also insurance companies get screwed into having to pay claims that should not be owed (via fraud and the court systems). |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5194
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
285.39 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You have some good points there. AT last someone admits that insurance companies are mostly about money. Also I was not driving in 1940 were you? When I was driving in the 70's there was no law where I live that said you had to have any type of automoble insurance. Can't remember what year that came into effect though. |
|
hummingbird
Senior member
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 609
3.49 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | AT last someone admits that insurance companies are mostly about money |
Of course they are in business to make money! Just like the bank, the gas station, the grocery store AND this website! I don't know anyone that thought or ascerted other wise.....
Did you know hummingbird that your state is a 'choice no fault' state...this is not real common, I think only a handful of states have this, (bet more follow however) and frankly very confusing, they also have a buy back! which I hadn't heard of before.... BUT it can greatly reduce your rates should you give up your right to sue..
You're state requires that you select one of two fault options:
| Quote: | | All drivers accept no-fault:By choosing this option, all drivers on your policy agree to limit their ability to seek compensation for injuries caused by other drivers, unless they have over $1,000 in medical expenses or suffer a serious or permanent injury as the result of an accident. Generally, by selecting this option, you can expect to pay a lower premium than if you were to reject no-fault coverage |
...
This may be a great option for you! Here is some information for you...You might want to check your policys to see what you have chosen...Bet there is some savings there for you somewhere!
| Quote: | Kentucky is a "choice no-fault" state. As such a KY motorist can choose to insure their vehicle under the tort system or the no fault system.
Under a tort system each driver involved in an accident is responsible for the property damage and/or bodily injury they caused. Also with a KY tort system you retain the right to sue the other driver in an accident for the cost of expenses related to injuries sustained in the accident.
Under the KY no-fault insurance system, you are required to purchase personal injury protection (PIP) coverage that helps pay the cost of injuries regardless of who was at fault in the accident. If you choose the no fault option, basic KY PIP coverage is $10,000 for medical expenses, loss of income or services, and funeral expenses.
When buying the basic PIP coverage in Kentucky you forfeit your right to sue the other driver in an accident for the cost of injuries, unless the cost exceeds a certain level set by the state. Kentucky insurance companies will allow you to buy back that right (even though you carry PIP) for an increase in your premium. This is referred to as "buy back" PIP.
Under either the no-fault or tort system, drivers in Kentucky are required to purchase basic liability coverage (bodily injury and property damage) in the state's minimum amounts of 25/50/10. Uninsured and underinsured motorist must be offered by an insurance company but can be waived in writing if one does not wish not to purchase these coverages.
In addition, PIP coverage must be purchased for all passengers that are not immediate family members. This is referred to as Guest PIP. It is basically a type of coverage that must be purchased if basic PIP has been rejected by the insureds listed on a policy.
As the Kentucky Department of Insurance (DOI) describes, when you purchase auto liability coverage you also purchase PIP coverage for you, your family and guest passengers (when choosing the no-fault system). The State of Kentucky however allows you to reject PIP for you and your dependents (under the age of majority) but not a spouse. Your spouse can reject as well but he/she must sign the rejection form. This means that you, your spouse and your household are choosing the tort system.
Under Kentucky law, the policyholder cannot reject PIP coverage for any guest passenger, thus Guest PIP is required to be carried. This coverage entitles the guest passenger to at least $10,000 of medical expenses, lost wages and similar "out-of-pocket" costs if injured while riding in the covered vehicle. |
I totally disagree with your statement | Quote: | | I liked it better better before it was a law you had to have insurance. |
(I can't remember when auto insurance was not a law either...I do however remember a time when showing ''proof'' wasn't required to license your vehicle, perhaps that is what you are thinking of....and I think I'm older than both of you!   )
you've been very clear that you don't feel that insurance should be required, ...I just don't understand that....If it were not required, and you caused 100k in damages to someone YOU are the one that is going to have to pay that! Likewise lets assume some idiot drunk driver, loses it, hits both of your cars setting out front, then drives into your house, severely damaging both cars, your house, and hit you, your husband, and son before the vehicle stops....No insurance requirement so the driver nor you have any coverage...now what? You and husband can't work for awhile because your hurt, not to mention your medical bills...your son is physically suffering there's a giant hole in your house and both of your cars are non-driveable...who's getting you back on your feet? YOU are....will you EVER recover (financially) from a loss such as this? NO, not unless you hit the lottery and frankly your luck ain't lookin' too good anyway! All of this is left up to you to take care of....see?
I agree insurance rates are out of site (especially homeowners in my area have skyrocketed in the past few years)....But at the same time, (lets take same scenrio, only the drunk IS insured, only because the state required it! cause let's face it there are alot of people that would not carry ANY insurance at all if it were not required, apparently you as well)...The drunk just bought his policy and has paid two months premium now his insurance company is gonna write drafts (after collecting two months premium lets say 200 bucks from him) for hundreds of thousands of dollars! Actually (again i agree rates are way too high)...the 'little guy'' is the one being saved here right? While he may hate paying those premiums and they may be a struggle (and who hasn't been there?) He is the one that benefits most by having this risk and consequential claim paid.....He (meaning lower income) is the guy that can not afford the loss (frankly I don't know anyone that can afford a loss )....
I'm just hoping you can enlighten me on your stance about this......because frankly I just don't get it.........
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess I am one of those people who dislike the insurance companies. My son was burned in a grease fire trying to save his girl friend's house. The insurance company was paying for meals out for her and her family while they fixed all the repairs to her kitchen. meanwhile ,my son has pain and suffering with 2 burned hands cannot work and has surgery. We had to cover his bills and give him money besides. Noe ,not his girlfriends family or the insurnace company was concern about his losses till we got a lawyer and recovered a small amount.Untill I have a good experinecs with an insurance comapny will just don't like them.They are something I have to support againsty my will i guess. I would opt to only have liability ,maybe. Yes, there was a time when there was no law requiring a driver to carry insurance. I don't know why no one can remember that or knew that. |
|
hummingbird
Senior member
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 609
3.49 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We had to cover his bills and give him money besides. Noe ,not his girlfriends family or the insurance company was concern about his losses till we got a lawyer and recovered a small amount |
The only thing I can think of that the insurance company would pay was if the policy had Medical payments. This would be very limited and only pay for actual medical expenses.
I don't want to belittle your son's ordeal but the owner purchased liability insurance. This _protects the homeowner_. That is what they bought and that is what the insurance does. It's not health insurance. That is the type of insurance needed to provide medical coverage for your son. Did you son have health insurance? From your post I'd say no. That is not anyone else fault. It's a little like paying for auto insurance and your house burns down. Would you expect your auto carrier to pay for your house?
Your son did an admirable thing. But perhaps it might have been better to avoid putting yourself in harms way and let the house burn... _that_ is why there was insurance. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5194
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
285.39 Dollars($)
|
|
