by hummingbird » Mon Dec 31, 2007 04:29 pm
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.
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 04:48 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.
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 01:13 pm Post Subject:
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:
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!
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
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! :roll: :lol: )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.........
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.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 02:50 am Post Subject:
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.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 01:31 pm Post Subject:
I guess I am one of those people who dislike the insurance companies.
Again, until you need them....could you have survived any or all of the claims you have had over your life time? Or the mishaps your son has had? I mean paid them all yourself? I've been driving for 32 years, haven't had too many claims and been a homeowner since about 83, I would be totally in the toliet (financially) had I had to pay these claims, and could work my entire life and never get it paid....You are of course free to 'like' or 'dislike' anything or anyone you want....I'm just trying to get you to agree that if insurance were not manditory, a good 50% wouldn't carry it, and then where would you or I or anyone be? If you didn't carry it, and hit me causing damage to me and mine, how are you going to make this right? Same if I hit you? Isn't that gonna tick you off worse than the amount of premium you are paying?
They are something I have to support againsty my will i guess.
You are not supporting them you are purchasing a necessary product..and you get what you pay for....Just like a car! or gas to move the car....are they necessary in todays society yep, (kind of) are they horrifically overpriced? yep again....could you ride the bus, get a bike, walk? Sure could but we don't want to!.....I would opt to only have liability ,maybe
That's fine and dandy, but don't get mad at the insurance company when you hit a deer, a vandal tears up your car, you slid off the road, and there is zero coverage for your own vehicle....because you didn't purchase THAT product...The insurance company was paying for meals out for her and her family while they fixed all the repairs to her kitchen.
Because they 'purchased' coverage to insure their home against fire, also most (all I've seen) homeowner policys also have 'additional living expenses' coverage.I too am not down playing your son's attempt to stop the fire, but why would he care more about their home than they did? They didn't get burned right? And if it makes you feel any better at all HAD THE INSURED or a member of their household done so and got hurt there would've been NO coverage or payments AT ALL for their medical bills because the insured is excluded from medpay coverage....Which (i would think) would be the only coverage your son would possibly be entitled to...Unless you think the owners were negliegent in some manner...which I surely don't see from your scenerio.......
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.
We know there was 'a time' when auto liablity insurance was not a requirement or state law, I just doubt it was in either of our driving life times....I believe it was Mass...that first 'required' it be on all vehicles and that was like 1927 or something...I'll research this a little and see if I can find out when all states required it...I agree though that you didn't have to 'prove' it to license a vehicle until the last ten years or so (in my state anyway) so could be that since you didn't have to prove it you didn't think you HAD to have it maybe? I don't know........Any way it looks like we can't come to a common ground on this....I just don't understand how anyone can think that liab. ins on a vehicle shouldn't be a required thing....in all states.....I really really don't understand your stance on that....and wish you could explain it so that I could make some sense of your reasoning...re: what happens when people suffer losses? Like the scenrios I laid out a post or two back...I just don't get it I guess...as I've said though I totally understand and agree at how terribly high rates are and that it is a struggle to pay them....but it's also a struggle to pay the gas bill in the winter some times too! maybe the gas company should just 'give' that to us?
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 03:05 pm Post Subject:
O would just assume that a home owners policy covered persons being injured at your home. Guess that was my mistake. I always assumed that our home owners polict covered a visitor if they were somehow injured at our home,example if they fell on our step or something.Maybe if a child was hurt or broke a limb ,I really had no idea that things like that were not covered under a home owners policy.Guess I know now. I guess I was more mad at my son's girlfriend and her mom as they were having a great time eating out and discussing how they were going to get new carpet for the living room and what color to choose, while my son was having surgery to remove the huge blisters from one of his hands.They were angry and soon broke up after they learned we sued the insurance to cover my son's medical bills.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 03:23 pm Post Subject:
You could be right.I never considered that point. Maybe it has always been a law but so many people still did not carry it is they could not afford it. I know my dad never had it as we were growing up.So maybe there were just a lot of law breakers back then. But I doubt my dad being a tenant farmer could afford auto insurance. The fire was caused by a pan of grease my son's girlfriend had left on the stove that caught fire.She was onlyu like 17 years old.I also agree that it would be great if everyone could afford the high rates of insurance ,but in reality all of us can't, sometimes we go woithout food to pay it .We need it to get a license for our cars so we can work and put food on the table and pay our bills .That is not an ideal situation.Maybe something could be done to make the payment mnore affordable without paying less. maybe streach out the payments more would be an option.I know there has to be a solution to the delima. By the way, my insurance I have is affordable as I have never had an accident or ticket in the 35 yrs I have been driving.
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:29 am Post Subject:
covered persons being injured at your home.
Well it does, but not for residents of the household...most homeowners policys have medpay coverage that will pay medical bills ONLY without any negligence by the homeowner, simply because they were injured on your property these generally have pretty low limits 2-5k....I've even paid poision ivy doc visits under this coverage for someone getting poision ivy on an insured property....!I guess I was more mad at my son's girlfriend and her mom as they were having a great time eating out and discussing how they were going to get new carpet for the living room and what color to choose, while my son was having surgery to remove the huge blisters from one of his hands.
I don't blame you for that...but that had nothing to do with the insurance company....So maybe there were just a lot of law breakers back then.
That is probably the case, and cops didn't check for (nor did we always have) proof, and society as a whole was so ''sue happy'' either! and the penalty for no insurance wasn't as severe either...
Some companies (the one I have my insurance with) will give you the six month rate but allow you to pay monthly if set up as a direct debit which is what I do...for me anyway paying it monthly is a lot easier than slapping down that amount twice a year!
Add your comment