Backdated car insurance: Can it be done?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/18/2007 - 21:48

I stumbled across this website and was hoping you guys could clarify this...
I read a lot of car forums and this part was in the legal section of one





Pulled over without car insurance? No problem!

All states in the United States require that you have auto insurance to operate a vehicle if you're caught without auto insurance you can lose your license for up to 6 months and/or a minimum of a $1000 fine.

There is a way to get out of this though. Depending on the state you live in, you have anywhere from 10-30 days to provide proof of insurance after an incident.

To go your local insurance dealer and ask if they offer Bond Insurance. If they offer Bond insurance, ask them if they'll backdate it for you. This means that they'll give you a card saying that you had insurance for previous months, when you really didn't. Of course, you're going to have to pay for these months. A Bond Insurance is an auto insurance that covers a particular driver with liability on any car that he drives the rates are usually high, but its often cheaper for people with bad driving records because it doesn't cover a particular car.

Once you get your backdated Insurance Card, you're home free.



Now, can is it possible to backdate car insurance? And if so, how often can it be done?

Posted: 18 Dec 2007 10:30 Post Subject: backdated car insurance can't be done!

OH MY GOSH !!! Markymark WHERE DID YOU GET THIS?

It's so full of misinformation I don't know where to start! :shock:


First this is not true.....

All states in the United States require that you have auto insurance to operate a vehicle

ALL states do not require ''insurance'' some only require financial responsiblity.....one of the ways to prove financial responsiblity is with a bond....but.......bonding requires a lot of financial information and pretty strict underwriting, and time.......(i had to be bonded twice-so I know what I'm talking about at least in the great state of Missouri)....

If they offer Bond insurance, ask them if they'll backdate it for you

This is fraud and a felony!!!!!!!!!! I don't know any agent that is a big enough moron to do this! :roll:

This means that they'll give you a card saying that you had insurance for previous months, when you really didn't.

OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!!!!!


Once you get your backdated Insurance Card, you're home free.

And you and the agent deserve to go to jail!

Serious what publication did this appear in if you don't mind saying?

Posted: 19 Dec 2007 02:20 Post Subject:

wow, even the everyday joe would know that this is not right.

Posted: 19 Dec 2007 04:12 Post Subject:

Ohhh sry, my bad. :oops: I read more into the thread and this was what the guy said. Is it still true?



I took it for granted that this would go without saying, but I should also include that an Insurance Agent would only issue such a request if it was a typical traffic violation... he wouldnt backdate your insurance if you were in an accident or what not.

Posted: 19 Dec 2007 05:07 Post Subject: Backdated car insurance policies are illegal

I have to say that this is possibly the most ridiculous post I have ever seen in these forums. Anyone who actually believes it should either (1) committed to the asylum for the criminally/terminally stupid, or (2) get what they deserve when the agent/producer who actually committed this patently stupid, and frankly offensive act gets nailed.

This CANNOT LEGALLY BE DONE...ANYWHERE...PERIOD.

Sorry...just had to get in my opinion. Excuse me if this was ranting.

InsTeacher 8)

Posted: 19 Dec 2007 11:04 Post Subject:

committed to the asylum for the criminally/terminally stupid,

:D :lol: love that! Ins teacher!

an Insurance Agent would only issue such a request if it was a typical traffic violation... he wouldnt backdate your insurance if you were in an accident or what not.

He'd damn well better not backdate ANYTHING! EVER!

Excuse me if this was ranting.

This one is worthy of ranting in my opinion!

Is it still true?

I don't know if it's ''true'' meaning if some idiot has/would do this...I do know it's illegal...and if I were an agent and you ask me to do something like this I would immediate contact underwriting and make sure you were never accepted as an insured, or non-renew you (or anyone making such a request) if possible....


OP again I ask you where did you read this?

Posted: 20 Dec 2007 04:14 Post Subject:

This is the forum. It's the first sticky thread. Feel free to reply. You have to subscribe first though! :?



This is the website. Tried to link it with your site here but it wouldn't let me post it with the link


carforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=111

Posted: 20 Dec 2007 10:43 Post Subject:

oh brother... :roll: the guy that posted that garbage (and more) is a 25 year old, car enthuseist...with NO insurance experience that i can see, although he'd a mod on that site, (which is scaring me) and is handing out legal advise all over the place!

Posted: 05 Jan 2009 08:22 Post Subject: insurace ticket

what if you policy was only out for 1 day and u get pulled over pulling in to ur insurance agnecys office to make a payment and the cop still gives u a ticket :x

Posted: 06 Jan 2009 12:02 Post Subject:

That cop is a jerk or having a bad day and taking it out on you!

Posted: 30 Aug 2010 09:48 Post Subject: Car insurance

This worked for me just fine. I have only done it once, but they were really nice and if was only for like four day lapse.

Posted: 30 Aug 2010 03:14 Post Subject:

This worked for me just fine. I have only done it once, but they were really nice and if was only for like four day lapse.



BS!

No other way to state it in public -- maybe the color will be an additional clue. :roll:

Posted: 18 Nov 2010 09:09 Post Subject: Hello

Just wanted to take a second and say whats up to everyone. Looking forward to your forum and what everyone here has to talk about.

Posted: 09 Dec 2010 10:52 Post Subject: O GOD!

First, why are you all so angry that someone can get a back dated policy. Ok, so it IS fraudulent... However, it is not half as illegal as FORCING someone to get insurance in the first place. Plus, IT'S NOT EFFECTING YOU IN ANY WAY! But this kid will be tormented by the penalties fallen on him. And if he didn't cause an accident then- no harm, no foul.
I'd also like to start by stating that I know that "the teacher" will publicly mock my statements, but it will make them no less true.
As an American, a TRUE American, I hold not with the idiots that use the emotional pleas to validate the absurd laws that are "for our own good" such as seat belt laws and the such. Seatbelts laws in laymen terms states that you, an adult, being of sound mind and body, are an idiot that does not know what is good for them; Therefore, the gov't must intervene and tell you how to live. Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but Thomas Jefferson (you remember, the man that CREATED the idea that is now America) believes that the gov't does NOT know what's best for you. YOU know what's best for you (not to mention the rest of the forefathers that fought for this). The seatbelt law basically was created because most traffic accidents are MINOR accidents, parking lot mishaps, and what not. As a result, it IS better to wear your seatbelt. First, you don't get josseled around and get minor injuries. But mostly, It protects insurance companies for having to pay for these injuries- EVEN THOUGH YOU PAY INSANE AMOUNTS EVERY YEAR FOR THAT PROTECTION. They'd rather have your money and NOT have to give it back. But like I said, you always have the idiot that says... "THINK ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE EVERY YEAR IN ACCIDENTS! SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES!" That might be true, but 1.)I know people who have died in car accidents because they got their head ripped off or their organs crushed by seatbelts. I was in a SERIOUS accident and if I had been wearing my seatbelt I would have at the very LEAST been paralized, because the car flipped and the roof crushed the seat that I would have been strapped to. My ex- boyfriend was in a serious accident and all of his injuries were sustaind by the seatbelt (which dug into his neck coming millimeters from severing his jugular, and breaking 2 of his ribs, and bruising his lungs!) 2.) If you decide not to wear your seatbelt and you get hurt, then that was your fautlt, and being an adult, you made a decision and you pay the consequence. And let's not rule out darwinism people.
Now that I have made the arguement that the gov't does not always know what's best for you, or the insurance companies that are in kahoots (sp?) with them, and only care about the money they receive- I'll make my second arguement about insurance.
Does anyone know anything about the mob? The mob used to go to stores and tell the owners that they needed to pay up so that they would be "protected". When the store owners would refute by stating that they were safe and needed no protection or could protect themselves, the mob would then throw a brick through the store front window and ask the owner "how safe do you feel now?" Of course, the person would pay for their protection from the bully. The gov't says- you need insurance to make sure that you are safe! The citizen states that they are safe and they have the driving record to prove it. And the gov't responds by locking you up, or charging you crazy fines, which if you don't pay, they lock you up. How safe do you feel now, America? Now again, the idiot would make the emotional plea that no insurance could hurt other motorists, which is true, but a logical fallacy all the same. As an American, you have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness (or at least, that was the original intention of this country) so long as you do not infringe on anyone else's same birth given rights in the process. Driving with no insurance does not actually hurt anyone- and there is no law that states you must face penalty for the probability or possibility of a crime. However, if you do CAUSE an accident (meaning if it is YOUR fault) then you can get hit with charges- such as retribution for damage costs incurred, or depending on the situation- reckless endangerment, vehicular homicide (like if your drunk or street racing). And if you cannot pay out of pocket the other person's damages- then probably negligence for not taking precautions such as getting insurance should this even occure.
Regulations, ordinances, and statuates are NOT law, but yet we follow these blindly everyday. Mostly because we've become accustomed to a certain way of life- the NEW American motto "I don't wanna deal with this so I'll let the government take care of it." As a result, they tell us what's good for us and we therefor comply. We are all victims that victimize ourselves.
Need another example? My best friend's girlfriend was in the hospital. He was racing to get there. He got THREE speeding tickets in the same day. (I believe this need not be said, but in all fairness- he seems like an idiot in that respect because it ended up taking him longer to get there because of being pulled over instead of just doing the limit, but he was acting on pure emotion and panic which I am sure everyone can sympathize with. I decide to just get it out of the way to agree with the fact that he acted stupidly so no one focus on that point as an arguement to deter from the bigger picture.) Now with that said, he had court for all three tickets in the same day, same court. So he goes to court and the prosecutor is ready to throw the book at him. Now, most of us would be scared and try pleaing to the prosecutor to go "easy" on them. But let's not forget that the prosecutor is working for the court. It's in his name- PROSECUTOR. He's not prosecuting the court, is he? NO. he's working for the court to prosecute YOU! So when it seems like he's cutting you a deal by reducing or eliminating points for higher fines- he's not. He's getting more money for his boss. My friend goes into court planning on, and succeeding at, getting out of all three tickets. Ticket 1.) He reitterates the point I made above that he broke no law according to bill of rights and declaration. Prosecutor stands up, and requests judge throws out all charges for ticket number one. Of course he went in depth, but she saw where he was going and knew that if the people had this information the courts would be forced to throw out tickets (and money) all day long, so she cut him off and had it dismissed because it was better for their pocket. Ticket 2.) To even make a speeding ticket legal the gov't has to go through miles-worth of paper work including crossing other law systems like maritime law. Now some would suggest by that statement that I am a conspiracy sympathizer or paranoid altogether. But let us not forget that many gov't started out well-meaning and good natured and turned into something ugly. Communism, anyone? As such, most cops don't even know about all the forms they must fill out to make the ticket legal. They get away with this because neither do the citizens, and they are scared. Courts pray on that fear as a way to dig deeper in your pockets. My friend asked the issuing officer to the stand (which most don't even know you can do) and asked him if he filled out what-ever form it was. The cop said he did. My friend asked where it was. The cop said that he didn't bring it. Just for fun, Charlie asked what the form looked like, and when the cop responded by describing the wrong form, Charlie jumped all over it. Again, the prosecutor stood up and threw out the case because if you can prove that the cops are incompetent at the simplest of actions, like paper work... well, you see where that is going. Ticket 3.) This one Charlie put up to the court to prove. He asked them to show the radar print out, or another officer to collaborate the story. Before he could show that the courts nor police could VARIFY his guilt (remember, innocent UNTIL proven guilty) the prosecutor for the third time stood up and asked the case be dismissed so others wouldn't catch on. Moral of the story: Don't be scared of the gov't or police or courts. You can beat them if you know your rights and their duties as officers of law.
Now I'm not saying that the kid that posted this isn't in hot water. He is. And I'm not suggesting that he do what my friend did because honestly my friend is great at that stuff and you need to REALLY know the law to pull it off. I am not passing out mis- information. Everything I have said is completely true- and I have nothing to gain by stating any of this, i'm not selling books, or giving you a way out for the low price of 3 easy installments of $19.99. I haven't told you to do anything illegal yet, like most of those books or advice does. I was simply appauled and disgusted by the "rantings" of someone that works for an insurance company (or at least that's what the name suggests). I am also disgusted by the people offering up kudos and following the one screaming the loudest. I just want to make the arguement on behalf of people who actually think for themselves and do not follow blindly the mindless nor want the gov't to "take care of it". This is more of a protest to the people that do... with lots of information that's TRUE- even though I know the screamer will shout that its misinformation and ridiculous.
To the kid that posted this: Get the back dated policy. The dude that told you that is right. Not ALL insurance companies will do it, but some will- unless you got into an accident and that's why you need it because NO WAY will those people pay if they don't have to. They give you a hard time even if you've been a valued customer for 30 years. Is it fraudulent? Absolutely, which is why the insurance companies that will do it will charge you more. Also, it would be better to not act like you know it's wrong... Say something like: I got a ticket and I had no insurance. I know it costs more for a backdated policy, but just how much would it run me? The company is more apt to work with you if you think it's perfectly legal which will lessen their tensions about getting later sued for such an action- and they know that they will get more from you without you thinking that you are bribing, or being bribed. I am going to say this just to see how mad everyone gets but: Once you get the card, stop paying. The cops have no way of knowing whether its valid or not, they just want to see an up-to-date card. Every year, pick a company, pay the intial, get the card, and be on your way. Now, I don't know what kind of driver you are and if you do get into an accident, then you are screwed. I just know that I've been doing it 3 years with out a hitch... but I haven't been in an accident, luckily. The point is: Who really cares if you get over on the gov't? They get over on you all the time. Don't feel like a bad person for wanting to get out of a ridiculous rule. There was a kid that spat on the sidewalk in some lower-economic country and publically got 50 lashes for it. Was that fair? NO. Did that gov't care? NO. and neither does yours as long as they get paid. The people on this site seem to suggest that you should just bend over and take the lashing... But in this case, the lashing could be jail time, $1000 fine, $250 to the DMV every year for 3 years, community service, loss of license, reports to insurance agencies which make it almost impossible to accquire insurance in the future, ect... And assuming you can't afford insurance you probably don't have money to pay the fines, nor can you afford to lose your license so you can't work, and you might lose your job if you do go to jail. It really violates your 8th ammendment (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.) And assuming you don't have insurance because your poor, I believe it is cruel and unusual to impose such penalties for being poor.
Years ago, the french cut off Americans middle finger to serve as a constant reminder of their tyranny. Americans who did not fall subject to such cruelty would hold their intact finger up to show the french "I'm still here. You can't hurt us all." Where's your middle finger at?

Posted: 10 Dec 2010 03:41 Post Subject:

DEVONMIG, you said that I would be in to comment on this, and you're right. Here I am!

While I could take hours to point out the inaccuracies in your post, I think the posts stands on its own in terms of "rant" and mis-information.

I do not believe for one second that the prosecutor laid down as you claimed. Secondly, your rationale against being "forced" to buy insurance is plain, old ridiculous and speaks volumes of your ignorance of the law, of social and societal norms in general, and of the court systems, statutory requirements and both federal and state court proceedings.

Any person who has any true knowledge of this topic will run screaming from your comments crying "This is why Americans are considered stupid and ignorant in the rest of the world!" Your pleadings are nothing short of (1) uneducated, (2) the whinings of those who feel that they have been mistreated but in reality blame others for their problems, and (3) grasping at straws due to your own issues and potential life-mistakes.

The friend who went to court on the 3 tickets also has no clue. I would bet you my last dollar that isn't how it went down. Your take on the "paperwork" and lack of constitutional authority to do what cops do is absolutely ridiculous. Strike that... it's completely off-the-wall and totally inaccurate.

Finally, the bit about "backdating?" YOU CANNOT BACKDATE AN INSURANCE APPLICATION IN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE!! It's against the law...and fraudulent. In other words, for the terminally language impaired- this means that fraud is one crime AND backdating the app is a separate offense.

Sorry about my "rantings" in this reply. It's just that I'm right and you're wrong. What'cha got now?

InsTeacher 8)

Posted: 12 Dec 2010 12:36 Post Subject:

However, it is not half as illegal as FORCING someone to get insurance



No one is FORCING you to get insurance. Where did you get that idea? You can drive all day long without auto insurance in California simply by putting $30,000 in a bank account and giving the DMV the right to seize the account if you cause a collision and fail to pay the loss. Or you can post a $30,000 surety bond with the DMV. Your choice.

IT'S NOT EFFECTING YOU IN ANY WAY! But this kid will be tormented by the penalties fallen on him. And if he didn't cause an accident then- no harm, no foul.
I'd also like to start by stating that I know that "the teacher" will publicly mock my statements, but it will make them no less true.



It may not be "EFFECTING" me, but it certainly does AFFECT the premiums I and every other insured driver in California pays. I don't know if you meant InsTeacher or me, the other "teacher", but if it's mocking you want, I'm here to give it to you, too.

As an American, a TRUE American, I hold not with the idiots that use the emotional pleas to validate the absurd laws that are "for our own good" such as seat belt laws and the such. Seatbelts laws in laymen terms states that you, an adult, being of sound mind and body, are an idiot that does not know what is good for them



You're doing a fine job of that on your own. As for your knowledge of history . . .

Thomas Jefferson (you remember, the man that CREATED the idea that is now America)



. . . are you suggesting that America would not exist today without him? Or are you giving him sole credit for writing the Declaration of Independence?

The seatbelt law basically was created because most traffic accidents are MINOR accidents, parking lot mishaps, and what not. As a result, it IS better to wear your seatbelt. First, you don't get josseled around and get minor injuries



No . . . seatbelt laws were passed in an attempt to protect those of us who pay taxes and medical insurance premiums from SCOFFLAW KNUCKLEHEADS like you who (1) have no health insurance and (2) drive without wearing a seatbelt, and when you discover one of Newton's Laws of Motion in the not-so-minor collision that sends your head through the windshield, causing the rest of us to pay for your trip to the ER, your hospitalization, and possibly for your lifetime of custodial care as a vegetating lump of spam (my apologies to the Armour company, and Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders).

Apparently you believe you have an inalienable right to drive an automobile on the public highways. Well, you DON'T! You need a license to do that, and one of the privileges of being a licensed driver is maintaining proof of financial responsibility.

Now that I have made the arguement that the gov't does not always know what's best for you, or the insurance companies that are in kahoots (sp?) with them, and only care about the money they receive- I'll make my second arguement about insurance.



Excellent!! You question your correct spelling of kahoots but you can't spell ARGUMENT to save your a**. [Just an editorial comment]

Regulations, ordinances, and statuates are NOT law, but yet we follow these blindly everyday. Mostly because we've become accustomed to a certain way of life- the NEW American motto "I don't wanna deal with this so I'll let the government take care of it." As a result, they tell us what's good for us and we therefor comply. We are all victims that victimize ourselves.



You're right, "statuates" are not laws (they aren't even a word). Perhaps if you had not been polishing your fingernails in 10th grade US history, you might have learned that STATUTES are laws, ordinances are laws, and regulations are laws. But who am I to argue with a constitutional scholar such as you?

But let's not forget that the prosecutor is working for the court. It's in his name- PROSECUTOR. He's not prosecuting the court, is he? NO. he's working for the court to prosecute YOU!



My, my! How our limited understanding of the ways of jurisprudence gets in the way of common sense. The prosecutor does not work for the court. The prosecutor works for the state. The court may be a state court, but the attorneys, both prosecutor and defender, are OFFICERS of the court -- so that sort of SINKS your load of crap argument.

To even make a speeding ticket legal the gov't has to go through miles-worth of paper work including crossing other law systems like maritime law.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

LMAO



Now some would suggest by that statement that I am a conspiracy sympathizer or paranoid altogether



I would never malign the conspiracy theorists or the paranoid like that. You're just an ordinary, FLAG WAIVING, AMERICAN FOOL.

To the kid that posted this: Get the back dated policy. The dude that told you that is right. Not ALL insurance companies will do it, but some will- unless you got into an accident and that's why you need it because NO WAY will those people pay if they don't have to. They give you a hard time even if you've been a valued customer for 30 years. Is it fraudulent? Absolutely, which is why the insurance companies that will do it will charge you more. Also, it would be better to not act like you know it's wrong... Say something like: I got a ticket and I had no insurance. I know it costs more for a backdated policy, but just how much would it run me? The company is more apt to work with you if you think it's perfectly legal which will lessen their tensions about getting later sued for such an action- and they know that they will get more from you without you thinking that you are bribing, or being bribed. I am going to say this just to see how mad everyone gets but: Once you get the card, stop paying. The cops have no way of knowing whether its valid or not, they just want to see an up-to-date card. Every year, pick a company, pay the intial, get the card, and be on your way.



In the words of the immortal "Great One"
HAR, HAR, HAR . . . DY, HAR, HAR!!


Please! stop! My side is aching and I can't see the keyboard, I have too many tears in my eyes from laughing so hard!! This is better entertainment than amateur night at the nudie bar. And no cover charge, too! But I may just have to drink a minimum of two doubles just to regain my composure.

Perhaps you, as a California driver, like many others who use your recommended "method" of registration and insurance coverage, have not heard that for the past several years now, all insurers doing business in California must electronically report a lapsed policy to the DMV. The DMV will sent you a letter telling you they know you have no insurance, and that your vehicle is subject to being impounded ON THE SPOT by any law enforcement officer in the state.

Oh, I forgot, you don't believe that any "regulations, ordinances, or statuates" are laws, so it won't happen to you. You'll be sure to tell the officer that maritime law prevents him from impounding your vehicle because he doesn't know which form to fill out . . . while, in the meantime, the minimum wage-earning tow truck driver hooks up your ride and carts it off to the impound yard. I'm sure he knows who Thomas Jefferson was -- the black guy who owned the dry cleaners and lived next door to Archie Bunker in the Bronx. (Don't even begin to think I don't know it was really "George" Jefferson.)

As for the Eighth Amendment . . . on behalf of the sane segment of the community here at-large . . . please stop inflicting your cruel and unusual punishment on us. It's too easy to shred you in public.

Posted: 19 May 2011 02:25 Post Subject: Show up again

hello, everybody presumably does not be acquainted with or bear in mind me, but I retain you ...
I'm with you and I desire that in these times go through a legal family. So point it all later to plead and on request what next ...
regards

Posted: 18 Jun 2011 01:10 Post Subject: Looking forward to make a contribution

Hey - I am really glad to find this. great job!

Posted: 06 Jul 2011 09:41 Post Subject:

Bottom line is: it can be done... just ask your insurance company. FOR INSTANCE: Maybe your policy had "expired" due to non payment, and paying it late will fix it all up for you. Try... and if it doesnt work, then God bless you and good luck. I am going through the same "no insurance" thing, I will pay dearly for doing it, and nothing I can tell the prosecutor or my insurance company will buy the leniency my money will.

Posted: 07 Jul 2011 04:17 Post Subject:

Maybe your policy had "expired" due to non payment, and paying it late will fix it all up for you



This does not "fix it all up". You have a break in coverage, and you have a period of time with no insurance, and are probably in violation of your state's vehicle code if you drive a vehicle on a public highway.

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 10:08 Post Subject:

I don't think so, you can get backdated car insurance for your car.

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 10:46 Post Subject:

You CANNOT get backdated insurance for your car.

You can visit the CA Dept of Insurance website, click on NEWS, and see years of press releases, some of which talk about people who were involved in traffic collisions without insurance, went home and called (or went online) the insurance company and purchased insurance --after the accident -- then turned in a claim for a collision that happened minutes AFTER the coverage took effect (the same collision that occurred an hour or so before the coverage was issued). Those press releases describe people who were ARRESTED for INSURANCE FRAUD.

Posted: 10 Aug 2011 04:17 Post Subject: puma sneaker

Hello i'm new to here....
Glad to see you all !

Posted: 12 Aug 2011 11:52 Post Subject:

Man... what is the deal here?

You cannot, period, get backdated car insurance. That's it. Final. The end. Finuto. Finis. Done. Over. Quit talking about it. Not possible. Fuggetaboutit. Not happening.

Is this clear enough? For all of you that really think you can backdate car insurance after you've had an incident? Get an agent that has a clue.

InsTeacher 8)

Posted: 22 Aug 2011 06:40 Post Subject:

I agree, it is not possible to take insurance in back date, if anyone can provide that then it will be a serious offense.

Posted: 20 Nov 2011 09:30 Post Subject: Yikes

OMG! I can't believe the petty insults toward one another and the egos! Shame on you. It's just sad that people communicate to one another in this fashion. :?

Posted: 07 Dec 2011 02:08 Post Subject:

LMAO you guys are getting all bent out of shape over a simple question: can you get backdated insurance? If so give me details.
I am not a cali resident and dont know CA laws, or care to, and I dont know all the laws in my state either. I dont sell insurance nor do I practice law. And I am fully aware that spell check dont catch all my mistakes (if I didnt do it intentionally).

I dont know anyone who has bout or sold backdated insurance but it can & does happen, and its illegal so you shouldnt.

Imagine if you will:
An insurance company that does every thing on paper and then later (if at all) puts it into a computer. The insurance form was filled out on the 11th, or is that the 17th? Ok it happens but not on purpose. The first payment is $100 but the customer got no change back from $150, oh well it happens but who would do that intentionally? Did the insurance get backdated? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Was it intentional? Possibly.

Most of the time your not going to run into this because most ins company’s do everything electronically so date and times are registered automatically.

If your insurance lapsed due to non-payment you may, that’s right MAY, still be covered if you pay right away. With my personal situation I had payment due on the 4th or 6th of the month and I didnt have the money to pay. On the 10th I got into an accident where my tire came off and hit a Sheriff in his off duty car, I happen to know him too lol. I payed the insurance a few hours later. The insurance company payed the claim and I did not receive any tickets. Why? Because my policy went into a Cancellation mode but was not canceled yet. Most company’s I have dealt with give you a grace period of X amount of days to pay an over due bill before you have to pay for a “new” policy, and as long as you pay the over due amount it will still be covered.

This is NOT backdating nor is it Illegal. Its the same reason your power and phones stay on if you haven’t payed your bills on time. Not every company will due this but the ones I have personally dealt with will.

As for the seat-belt laws?

Yes it makes ins lower because less payed out to injury but the Primary Reason to have them is $$$. if I dont wear my seat belt I am not hurting you. I am not making the road more dangerous. And in an accident it does not increase the likely hood of injury for anyone but my self. It is mostly a way to make the roads OVERALL Safer Statistically (gov't & police look better) and drive up revenue.

Btw as a side note: in my state the cops were giving incentives based on the number of seat-belt tickets they were given during the 1st year we had the new law.

If you got a no ins ticket buying the policy the same day will in may cases get the ticket thrown out or reduced. However, with electronic notification in CA this would likely be a problem. I had a 3 tickets at once totaling $740 ticket for 1) no Ins in vehicle 2) no Registration in vehicle and 3) no Front Plate (required here no everywhere) I had it reduced to a flat $50 because I brought in proof of Ins, and Reg and I had front plate in vehicle but not visible, I just mounted it. The reason the cop gave me for not toeing the vehicle was because it was registered to my mom at the time. But really it was just a training exercise for a rookie or they would not have pulled me over in the first place.

Posted: 10 Dec 2011 09:59 Post Subject:

dont know anyone who has bout or sold backdated insurance but it can & does happen, and its illegal so you shouldnt.


It does not happen for the reason you state -- it is not lawful to do this. No insurance company does it, and no reputable agent ever would consider doing it.

An insurance company that does every thing on paper and then later (if at all) puts it into a computer. The insurance form was filled out on the 11th, or is that the 17th? Ok it happens but not on purpose. The first payment is $100 but the customer got no change back from $150, oh well it happens but who would do that intentionally? Did the insurance get backdated? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Was it intentional? Possibly.


Entirely implausible scenario. Paid $150 for a $100 premium, but received no refund? Makes no sense. Excess premium is either refunded immediately or it will be credited to future premiums due.

Insurance company receives application on the 11th, inadvertently keys in "17" then makes a correction later. That's not backdating, and it's not unlawful. Backdating is applying on the 17th and asking for coverage to begin on the 11th. That's unlawful in every state. That's what LMAO is all about.

I had a 3 tickets at once totaling $740 ticket for 1) no Ins in vehicle 2) no Registration in vehicle and 3) no Front Plate (required here no everywhere) I had it reduced to a flat $50 because I brought in proof of Ins, and Reg and I had front plate in vehicle but not visible, I just mounted it.


No, you didn't get "three tickets all at once", you received one citation with three violations listed. You paid $50 as a dismissal fee, but none of that is germane to the discussion because YOU HAD INSURANCE and the vehicle actually was registered at the time.

My wife went to traffic arraignment court just two weeks ago here in CA to ask for a trial on a speeding citation. While we were there, in a state that "requires" proof of financial responsibility when operating a motor vehicle on the highway, and generally demands that drivers be licensed, more than 40% of the defendants (there were 103 citations on the calendar for that session) were cited for NO PROOF OF INSURANCE/FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and about half of those were also cited for NO DRIVER LICENSE IN POSSESSION at the time.

Only a couple of all those folks actually had insurance at the time of their citation (but there were some who had it now, and had their fines reduced by 50%), and only two or three of the 23 or 24 who had no driver license at the time of their citation were actually licensed drivers on that day. Of the rest, some were driving with suspended licenses, and others still had no driver license when they showed up for arraignment. A few now had licenses and had their fines reduced by 50%.

And you would have thought that after the judge laughed out loud at the first person who said, "I was on my way to get the insurance when I got stopped by the police," the others who were even thinking of using that excuse would try something different. But, no, six different people tried that one on the judge -- who hears that same thing day after day after day. Nothing new under the sun, as the Bible tells us.

if I dont wear my seat belt I am not hurting you. I am not making the road more dangerous.


Well, let's explore this misunderstanding a bit. Do you have health insurance to pay for your head injury or the damage the airbag will do to your head, neck, and chest? Yes? No?

If the answer is NO, then you are hurting me, and others like me. Because it's our Social Security and Medicare contributions that are being stolen to pay for your Medicaid expenses, and our general tax dollars that are being stolen to pay the state's administrative expense, and our inflated health insurance premiums are the result of your treating physicians and surgeons, and the hospitals in which you receive your care not being compensated properly under the Medicaid system, so they are forced to charge everyone artificially inflated amounts for healthcare expenses, which, in turn, affects insurance claims and premiums. I have that coverage, and it is hurting me, like it's hurting 285,000,000 other folks in America today.

Because you and others like you, with your naive attitude about life, liberty, and the pursuit of driving without a seatbelt makes you all very dangerous. And you are making the road more dangerous because you are driving with a careless attitude . . . one which certainly extends to your driving and texting at the same time. I spend at least half my time behind the wheel being forced to look out for you and those like you, instead of concentrating only on what's in front of me.

If your insurance lapsed due to non-payment you may, that’s right MAY, still be covered if you pay right away.


Now, the fact that you are not an agent accounts for your miscommunication here and in the words that followed this statement above. Your policy paid the claim because it was NOT LAPSED. It was, to your good fortune, in its GRACE PERIOD. Had you gone beyond the grace period without the payment of your premium and then the accident occurred, you would have learned an expensive lesson, because THEN you would have had no coverage at all. And for that, there is no amount of money you can pay to get the coverage reinstated back to the time of the collision or earlier.

In five or ten years, when you turn age 30, you may wizen up by then. You might even be a licensed insurance agent at that time, and your knowledge might be improved as a result.

But really it was just a training exercise for a rookie or they would not have pulled me over in the first place.


LMAO!!

Posted: 11 Dec 2011 01:19 Post Subject:

LMAO you didnt even take the time to understand the post

no one would pay 150 for 100 policy and get nothing back but if you were doing something illegal like back dating it they would. What I was saying is the person got the policy on the 17th and they said it was on the 11th.

It does not happen for the reason you state -- it is not lawful to do this. No insurance company does it, and no reputable agent ever would consider doing it.


do you even take the time to think about what your saying? I dont think so because you just pointed out exactly what I was saying. No “REPUTABLE” agent would ever do it. But we are not talking about reputable people, DUH!!! a Non-reputable agent would do it for a fee in a system that could allow it. But with the invent of modern technology it is almost impossible, almost.

No, you didn't get "three tickets all at once", you received one citation with three violations listed.


Your right I did get three violations on 1 ticket, and I did have insurance at the time. However, the point I was making is that tickets do get reduced, through out, and dismissed as you pointed out. My brother got a no seat-belt ticket and it was dismissed because it was written up wrong, and he did not have to pay any fees at all.

It was, to your good fortune, in its GRACE PERIOD.


no please mr ins agent please explain it for all of us what is the grace period all about? Because how my agent explained it to me was I pay Feb. 6 for the period from Feb. 6 to Mar. 6 and if I get in an accident on say March 15th without paying for Mar. to Apr. then it is lapsed ins. Unless, that is, if I pay the ins withing the Grace Period which we will say for argument sake last until the 20th. So if I pay on the 19th it is covered but if I pay on the 21st it is not. Thats the way the explained it to me, is it different in the so called great state of California?

[quote:35c7e176e0]if I dont wear my seat belt I am not hurting you. I am not making the road more dangerous.


Well, let's explore this misunderstanding a bit. Do you have health insurance to pay for your head injury or the damage the airbag will do to your head, neck, and chest? Yes? No? [/quote:35c7e176e0]
Misunderstanding? I dont think so. In fact I completely disagree with you. To start with I do have medical insurance. And in fact if I am on the road I should have insurance and if it is more than minimum it likely covers injury and I am covered. Not only that Obama care Requires everyone to get medical coverage or if they cannot afford it then it will be provided to them (IN LAYMEN TERMS) and this goes into affect I think the year after Obama is or is not re-elected. So by 2013 everyone of those 285,000,000 adults will answer 'Yes Mr Ins Agent I have Ins Thank You Very Much!'

Now to the real question should we prevent people from doing Stupid/Dangerous activity’s? In addition to preventing people to not ware their seat belt, shouldnt we make sure they dont ski-dive, face jump, open ocian swim, rock clime without, or even with, safety ropes? All of this potentially could rise our Ins payments. We shouldnt let anyone do anything that is dangerous, in fact they shouldnt be in a vehicle cause that could cause our Ins payments to go up if they are involved in some kind of accident.

LMAO that is exactly what you are saying. And that is not what should happen. Wearing your seat belt does NOT Make it less likely to be in a crash, it does NOT make you a better driver and it does NOT make the Other drivers Safer. It should not be a ticket-able offense for the driver.

Now before anyone else brings it up Children not wearing their seat belts in the vehicle that is a debatable question and we are off topic already.

But really it was just a training exercise for a rookie or they would not have pulled me over in the first place.


the reason I say that is because of the way it went down. I will try to put it in a way you may understand and get a feel for the situation.

I was driving south in the city and stopped at a red light. At the same time a police car came through the light and saw me without a front license plate he turned around and pulled in behind me. It was an old veteran cop with a very young cop that had not been on the force very long. The veteran cop told the young one what to do and he did it.

At the time I was in a small old 2 door rice burner with me driving, my brother in the back seat behind me and his double base taking up the hole passenger side of the vehicle. In order to get to the glove compartment he had to lift and pull back on the instrument. In the glove box was the license plate and should have been the registration and ins, and of course it was not. The veteran officer told me that my car looked stolen and would have impounded the car but my mom has the same last name as me so he just gave me the ticket.

I talked to a friend of mine who is part of the same department he implied he new the 2 officers and said he was training the new guy or he probably would not have pulled me over.

Also I had taken that rout dozens if not hundreds of times before.

Sorry for the rant about that but that is why I wouldnt have been pulled over if he wasnt training the officer.

In five or ten years, when you turn age 30, you may wizen up by then. You might even be a licensed insurance agent at that time, and your knowledge might be improved as a result.


LMAO........LMAO,... you dont have a clue how old I am or how much knowledge I have. You dont know how much schooling I have or if I have studied law/ins. You do know because I have said so, that I am not a lawyer or an ins agent but thats it. You dont know that I was in college majoring in Engineering until the money ran out. You dont know jack ish about me so dont assume im not wise just because I disagree with you and the not so great state of California!

Posted: 11 Dec 2011 03:39 Post Subject:

a Non-reputable agent would do it for a fee in a system that could allow it


This is what you don't understand. There is no system that allows it. There are unscrupulous people (with or without insurance licenses) that take other people's money and give them what LOOKS LIKE insurance -- a card, even a contract -- but, the reality is, there is no insurance in force. Not backdated, not forward dated, not NOTHING. So the whole premise that kicked off this thread a long time ago is FALSE. There is no such thing as BACKDATED auto insurance, and your whole little scenario was a waste of time. $100 - $150 - WHATEVER. All BS.

no please mr ins agent please explain it for all of us what is the grace period all about?


Simple. A grace period is the period of time AFTER THE DUE DATE one has to pay their premium and continue their coverage without interruption. Claims occurring in the grace period are payable minus the premium due and unpaid. If premiums are unpaid at the end of the grace period, the policy lapses and there is no coverage FROM THE PREMIUM DUE DATE, not the date of lapse. Each state's insurance code describes the grace period for different types of insurance. In CA, for auto insurance, the grace period is 15 days. If due on the 6th, you have until midnight on the 21st to pay, but at 12:01am on the 22nd, without making the payment, you are uninsured as of the 6th. Most states use 15 days for auto policies.

Not only that Obama care Requires everyone to get medical coverage or if they cannot afford it then it will be provided to them (IN LAYMEN TERMS) and this goes into affect I think the year after Obama is or is not re-elected. So by 2013 everyone of those 285,000,000 adults will answer 'Yes Mr Ins Agent I have Ins Thank You Very Much!'


Yeah, you don't understand this either. But that's a different thread you can find elsewhere on this site.

In addition to preventing people to not ware their seat belt, shouldnt we make sure they dont ski-dive, face jump, open ocian swim, rock clime without, or even with, safety ropes?


Sure, why not? No argument there. It's just that far more persons drive around town on a regular basis than all those other things combined, so there's a greater desire to protect people from themselves when it comes to driving without seatbelts, or child restraints (that you apparently are not in favor of either), or small children in the front seat.

Wearing your seat belt does NOT Make it less likely to be in a crash, it does NOT make you a better driver and it does NOT make the Other drivers Safer


Nice try, changing the subject, that is. Why not address the real essence of my response. The "misunderstanding" has to do with the financial harm those drivers and occupants represent to me, to you, to all insurance consumers. If you have health insurance, terrific, the remarks were not addressed to you specifically, but to those who don't and also refuse to wear their seatbelts. It has to do with society being forced to cover their medical claims.

Those who get ejected and killed, they take us off the hook. The rest? They cause you and me and others like us who have health insurance to pay more than we should have to pay. I made that point, and you chose to ignore it. [The skydivers, mountain climbers, skiers, snowboarders, and others -- yes they affect our premiums, too, but not to as great an extent as uninsured drivers who don't wear seatbelts. That's a statistical fact, and the cost of insurance is based on statistics.]

It should not be a ticket-able offense for the driver.


You're right, why pick only on the driver? CA and many other states recognizes that and here even passengers can be cited for not wearing their seatbelt. We are an equal opportunity state. So come here and drive without your seatbelt, and prepare to be cited and fined. We're also broke (again, a different discussion), so after the penalty assessments and court fees, the fine for a first-time seatbelt violation is about $200. More for #2.

I was driving south in the city and stopped at a red light . . .


Cute story, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the heart of the matter. You were cited for traffic offenses, went to court, proved everything was as it was supposed to be, and the court did what it was supposed to do, dismiss the incident and you paid the convenience fee for that. Guess what? If you were following the law in the first place, training exercise or not, you never would have been cited. That's why the whole story is meaningless.

The veteran officer told me that my car looked stolen


That's the "probable cause" for the stop, the missing license plate was the whipped cream and cherry.

you dont have a clue how old I am or how much knowledge I have. You dont know how much schooling I have or if I have studied law/ins.


You're absolutely right. And I did not cast any aspersions on you.

But you know what? I don't need to know that you aren't a lawyer or an insurance agent (whether you told us or not), or even that you would be an engineer by now if you hadn't quit school. That's all unimportant. Because it's true about most other people, too.

The only thing I need to know about you is your attitude toward risk. And you've laid that all out quite nicely.

You believe that whatever is OK for YOU, if it doesn't hurt YOU, is no one else's business. Fine. I can live with that because lots of people have that same misguided attitude, and I've worked alongside some of them.

But, if you want to live here and drive here, and want the state to grant you the privilege of driving a motor vehicle, to issue you a driver license to do so, to register your vehicle to be able to operate it on the public highways, then YOU have to do what the state requires -- such as wearing a seatbelt and buying insurance (or proving financial responsibility with cash or a bond) -- or suffer the consequences. Your failure to comply with the law has ramifications beyond the confines of your front seat.

The alternative is sometimes called anarchy.

I also know this: you're too young and inexperienced in the ways of this world to understand it all. You've been educated by socialist-leaning teachers and college professors who prey upon such naivete to indoctrinate their immature, captive audiences. Capitalism is evil. Big business is evil. Insurance companies are evil. College professors have the real answers. The middle class in America is dead. It's the Poor 99% vs. the Wealthy 1%.

When I was told that in a post-graduate class on "Diversity in the Classroom" at Cal State Northridge in 2004, I threw it all back in the face of the professor right then and there, in front of 30 other students in the class, all but a handful of us who were under age 25. I wasn't going to be told something that was not true, and I had the truth in front of me on my laptop screen at the moment.

Because young people like you don't think for yourselves, and because you're afraid to challenge authority, you sit and listen and take all that crap and make it yours, and then you expect the world to come around to your faulty way of thinking. It's been tried before, it's been called communism, and the Soviet Union no longer exists because of that very thing. China may not be far behind.

But we might beat China. Here it's been labeled "the dumbing down of America" -- and it's beginning to show its ugly face. We have seen it most recently in the plethora of "Occupy" encampments in various places across the country. No coordination, no real message, just people with too much time on their hands and wanting others to come to their pity party. Their lists of demands was laughable, for the most part.

The reality is this: if you don't like having to conform to the laws of society, because this is the United States, you can (1) work the process to change the laws and hope that there are enough like-minded people to agree with you, or (2) move to somewhere else in the world where you get to make the rules and everyone else must follow them.

That would be a pretty lonely place.

Posted: 09 Feb 2012 03:30 Post Subject: monster beats sale

Owner would like to thank .

Posted: 09 Feb 2012 11:54 Post Subject: Backdated car insurance: Can it be done?

Car Insurance is one of the most important responsibilities of owning a vehicle is having an insurance to it. All American states require you to have some way of proving that you are financially responsible should you be found at fault in an accident. More than likely, you will required by law to at least carry your state's minimum requirement of liability coverage.

Without car insurance, you leave yourself open to lawsuits and possible financial ruin. Moreover, not having any or enough liability coverage is a huge legal risk that can bring about hefty fines and even jail time. Majorly with the increase in automobiles, we are surrounded with risk of major incidents. To avoid huge financial loss there is a need to secure our automobiles with best auto insurance policies.

Posted: 10 Feb 2012 12:28 Post Subject:

People rely on insurance to be there when they need it most. What ever it may be a car insurance after a serious crash or medical insurance upon discovering you have a severe illness or injury. After all, people don't randomly pay premiums every single month just for fun.Get the benefits for insurance with the help and support of best lawer.

Posted: 15 Feb 2012 10:48 Post Subject:

with the help and support of best lawer.


It would be best to use the help only an insurance agent can provide. Lawyers do not normally sell insurance.

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 11:58 Post Subject:

Maxherr you are right only insurance agent can help you in better way rather than lawyer


[ Link deleted per TOU ]

Posted: 16 Jul 2013 03:15 Post Subject: It is not totally Illegal

I had a policy that had two cars on it and when i went to add the 3rd car, ALLSTATE asked me if i would like to back date it up to 30 days. Yes it can be backdated if you hav an existing policy in god standing. Call ALLSTATE and ask them yourselves!!!

Posted: 16 Jul 2013 04:31 Post Subject:

ALLSTATE asked me if i would like to back date it up to 30 days.

Yippee! Hooray! I don't suppose you had any accidents or claims in that 30 day period did you? If you go back to the original post, that's what the question about backdating was all about -- obtaining insurance to cover an accident that already happened. That, sir, is never going to happen, unless Obama comes up with ObamaCar to go with Obamacare, where you can pay $95 in 2014 for no health insurance, and then buy the health insurance in 2015 while you are having a heart attack and waiting for the paramedics to transport you to the ER.. Such a deal! ObamaCar . . . buy it when you need it, the heck with them when you don't. A perfect world that would be.

Can a policy be backdated with no claims exposure? Sure. The insurance company has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Allstate ripped you off for 30 days of coverage you did not need. You win the prize!

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.