by thomgyrl » Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:24 pm
My sixty year old Aunt rear ended a man who pulled out in front of her and was cited with a ticket. She didnt have insurance coverage at the time of the accident. The young man she rear ended was driving his mothers car and is supposedly covered under HER insurance. At the time of the accident however, he was operating the vehicle with an expired drivers license. The car he was driving sustained minimal damage, my Aunts car was rendered undrivable. She was also mildly hurt. Does his mothers insurance coverage apply even though he was driving with an expired license?
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:50 am Post Subject:
First, most likely, yes. But applies in what way? It's kind of moot point as this does not excuse the fact that your aunt was at fault and will need to pay for the other person's loss.
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 01:21 pm Post Subject:
It is NOT a MOOT point!!! My car insurance covers my vehicle and any person I allow to drive it---it DOES NOT cover the DAMAGE to my car if that person if found to be driving with an EXPIRED or SUSPENDED license! Is that the policy of most insurance companies? Because if it is, the "damage" done to the car he was driving (his mothers car) would be HER financial responsibility, NOT my Aunts. Not only did this young man pull into oncoming traffic without warning -- no signal, poor timing--- on a snowy inclimate day. Once he pulled into the street he moved along the road at less that fifteen miles an hour, making it virtually impossible for an oncoming car to stop in time. I feel this accident was caused intentionally. He called a tow truck to have his car taken away even though the car was totally operable, and the only "damage" sustained was to the bumper (it fell off). The police officer didnt issue a ticket for his expired license. The car is a 1998 Chevy Malibu, and his mothers insurance has decided to "total" the car...WHY??? Again, if her insurance doesnt cover other drivers with expired or suspended licenses...my aunt shouldnt have to pay.
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 02:01 pm Post Subject:
it DOES NOT cover the DAMAGE to my car if that person if found to be driving with an EXPIRED or SUSPENDED license!
I'd like to see a quote of this from your policy.In this situation the other person has the expired license. So it's a liability coverage question not a 1st party coverage question as you mentioned above. That is, you state if someone is driving you car without a valid license then your car is not covered. In that situation it's not the damage to your car that we'd be discussing, it's the damage to the other person's car.
I feel this accident was caused intentionally.
Perhaps. You can feel that way but what can be proven? Here is what I read... it was snowing at the time, the person had just pulled out into the roadway and only got up to 15mpg before he was rear ended. It it was snowing he was probably driving slower then normal in order to maintain control of his vehicle. If he had been driving for awhile at 15mph then he needed to have been established in his lane for some time before he was rear ended. All the more reason why your aunt should have had time to slow down and avoid rear ending him.He called a tow truck to have his car taken away even though the car was totally operable, and the only "damage" sustained was to the bumper (it fell of
The rear bumper is a piece of safety equipment. He could be cited for driving without it. This is why it was towed.The car is a 1998 Chevy Malibu, and his mothers insurance has decided to "total" the car...WHY??? Again, if her insurance doesnt cover other drivers with expired or suspended licenses...my aunt shouldnt have to pay.
I can't make sense of this. If the man was driving without a license and his mothers carry is addressing the damage to the vehicle then the mothers carrier _is_ extending 1st party coverage. So they would be offering coverage when an unlicensed person is driving. Keep in mind, the 1st party coverage is being afforded to the mother... not the driver (the driver does not own the vehicle). That is also why I initially asked about this exclusion under your policy.What the other company covers does not change who is liable and/or responsible for the loss. You may not like that the other person was driving when he should not have been but he should be cited for this and need to pay fines. It does not excuse who caused the damage to his vehicle.
Your aunt is more then welcome to refuse payment and deny that she is liable. She may also need to provide herself a a defense if she is sued. This is an important reason why people have insurance... so they don't need to defend themselves.
I'm I understanding this correctly, that you are upset that an unlicensed driver was driving? What about people who drive without insurance?
Also, you keep using the pronoun "her" but there is your aunt ("her") and the owner of the other vehicle (another "her").
The car is a 1998 Chevy Malibu, and his mothers insurance has decided to "total" the car...WHY???
Have you seen the other vehicle? I'm betting it was more then just the bumper. I'll lay odds that the rear 1/4 panels were buckled. If they were, this could easily cause the repair cost to sky rocket.Add your comment