Parents divorced Child lives in NJ Dad gives child PA regist

by Guest » Sun Apr 07, 2013 06:57 pm
Guest

I am divorced and live in NJ. Ex has just moved to PA. Ex has given our son a vehicle (registered to ex in PA) to use which will be garaged at my house in NJ. Ex says he can not add son to his policy which covers the vehicle because son is licensed in NJ. Is this true? Should son be added to my policy? That will make three drivers and one car on my policy, Also, will car be rated for highest rated driver (17 yr old son?)

Total Comments: 5

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 01:59 am Post Subject:

Ex says he can not add son to his policy which covers the vehicle because son is licensed in NJ. Is this true?

Absolutely. But giving the vehicle back to your ex won't solve your problem -- because that's not the problem.

Should son be added to my policy? That will make three drivers and one car on my policy, Also, will car be rated for highest rated driver (17 yr old son?)

Here's the problem. If your son has a driver license, whether he has a car or not, he NEEDS to be on someone's policy. Yours, his, or someone else's in NJ. He cannot be on an out-of-state policy as a NJ resident with a NJ driver license.

When he obtained his license, he promised the state that he would be financially responsible for his driving, and you probably signed for that, too. So if he's uninsured, where's the responsibility?

You can make it your ex-husband's problem by sending both your son and his vehicle to your ex-husband. That may not solve your son's problem of divorced parents who can't stand each other.

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 07:30 pm Post Subject:

Thanks for your response...however, parents who can't stand one another isn't the problem here.

A bazillion years ago I worked in insurance and we would handle this type of situation by listing the child on the policy which held the car he would be driving with an alternate garaging address (and rating) for where the car is actually being garaged.

I have contacted my agent to add him to my policy which they will do as soon as he is licensed, which I guess is all I can do. He (I guess) qualifies as a permissive user on the actual car he'll drive

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 06:04 am Post Subject:

Hi mapela! Good to see you as a registered member of AmPmInsure Community. Since you were already in the insurance sector and still on good footing with how to proceed with any insurance related problems, you perhaps know better ways to cure your trouble than us as there is not doubt that you understand your circumstances better than we do.

Anyway, since you are a knowledgable fellow, I hope you'd share your knowledge here and help people with their insurance related queries. :)

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 09:04 am Post Subject:

we would handle this type of situation by listing the child on the policy which held the car he would be driving with an alternate garaging address (and rating) for where the car is actually being garaged.

Few insurance companies, if any, are interested in doing this today because of the disparity in coverage requirements from one state to another and variations in cost of insurance. NJ and PA liability minimums are the same (15/30/5), and both states are home to some of the worst drivers in America.

And both states are "no fault" states, but the PIP requirements are very different, which definitely affects the cost. NJ has a $250,000 maximum, which most people carry, but a person can now voluntarily reduce that to $150,000, $75,000, $50,000 or the minimum $15,000 to cut down their cost of insurance. But the AICRA that took effect on October 1, 2012 has significantly changed the way auto insurance injury claims are handled, and insurance companies now have the right to require "precertification" of treatment plans before certain PIP claims may be paid. Failure to follow those rules can cause the loss of benefits.

PA has a $5,000 minimum, but is a "choice" state -- the insured may choose pure no-fault or modified no-fault coverage. If a PA driver has chosen pure no-fault, he gives up the right to sue the at-fault party for his "non-economic" damages (pain and suffering or "tort"/"general" damages), and is also immune from tort suits. When one party to an accident has pure no-fault coverage, the other party cannot sue or be sued by him, even if that party has the modified no-fault coverage which would otherwise allow for tort suits.

So insuring your child under NJ law is probably more beneficial, even if more costly, than under PA law. Ideally, he will be a great driver who will never need to file a claim in his driving career. But I don't have a crystal ball, and can't tell you what the future holds. He could also uphold the "honor" of NJ drivers and become one among the worst in America.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.