by Guest » Thu Feb 18, 2010 06:48 pm
My vehicles was stolen , and involved in a head on collision, my son was a passenger in the vehicle , driver unknown and fled from the seen , my son currenly lives in my home but doesn't always and he has no licence or permission to drive any of my vehicles at any time. He was extremly intoxicated.
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 07:42 pm Post Subject:
Non-permissive use is when someone who has never been given permission to drive a vehicle before by the owner, and has has no knowledge or access to the vehicle's keys operates a vehicle.
Your wording is more of a statement than a question, but I am guessing you are asking if the insurance company is labeling this driver as the non-permissive driver? They should be. Is someone trying to say otherwise? Your son was intoxicated or the unknown driver?
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:18 pm Post Subject:
I don't know...I can see a case of permissive use...son took car, went out got drunk, had another drunk drive him home, had a wreck driving drunk runs...yep...
Are you ready to file grand theft auto charges against your son?
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:42 pm Post Subject:
my son was a passenger in the vehicle , driver unknown and fled from the seen
Why do I think this is not the whole story. I'm guessing at some point your son was sober enough to take the car... and I've not heard of alcohol erasing sober memories.It's a safe bet that your son obtain the keys to the car. I'm also betting at some point he allows those keys to get into the hands of the person that was driving. There is no good reason I can see to show that this driver should have had any reason to think he should not have used the car... seeing that your son was a passenger. So even if your son did not have your permission (which is probably did as having access to the keys would be close enough), the driver would probably considered to have had permissive use.
The operator and/or owner are going to be held responsible for this accident (providing the driver was liable, which I think is the case) so you certainly don't want a denial. If they denied coverage it might be to the driver (I doubt they will deny him coverage) but they should still extend coverage to you as the owner.
My suggestion is to go out and look for a good safe to lock your keys in... your son will probably eventually kill himself or someone else if he is allowed access to the vehicle.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 01:10 am Post Subject:
Are you ready to file grand theft auto charges against your son?
I don't see that happening. I had similar case awhile back, but it was the girlfriend's brother who stole the car. The only way the owner was able to get out of the liability was to go after the brother. He filed charges and the brotherb was convicted.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:07 am Post Subject: Stolen car accident
Normally the owner of a stolen car is not held liable for any damages caused to the car while the car was in possession of another person who had no permission to operate the vehicle.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:46 am Post Subject:
I had similar case awhile back, but it was the girlfriend's brother who stole the car.
I don't think it's exactly similar in your case.
driver unknown and fled from the seen
Have you been able to spot this unknown driver? Your son might know his whereabouts.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:30 pm Post Subject:
The only way the owner was able to get out of the liability was to go after the brother. He filed charges and the brotherb was convicted.
I agree with this statement, it would probably be the only way for the owner to be off the hook, of course this may also lead to the son's arrest/conviction as well.
Normally the owner of a stolen car is not held liable for any damages caused to the car while the car was in possession of another person who had no permission to operate the vehicle.
While that is usually the case Veronica, in this situation I see permissive use coming into play here. However, not knowing the son's age complicates an opinion from myself. If he is a minor, under legal driving age, I suppose then possibly the owner could claim non-permissive use.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:32 pm Post Subject:
Veronica..this vehicle isn't going to be considered a stolen vehicle unless the OP is prepared to have his son charged...and I highly doubt it.
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 03:33 pm Post Subject: Married but separated - vicarious liability
Tennessee: I'm working with someone who was separated (not legally), wife attempted to report the car stolen, police would not file report since they were still married (marital property), but has a record of the attempt to report car stolen. So... Huband stole car, crashed into cop car. Husband was arrested and convicted (exact charges unknown). Now, city is going after wife (deeper pockets) for damages. Husband was not on insurance or title. Anyone know of any precedent for that? I've found some cases in CA, but nothing here in TN.
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 09:25 pm Post Subject:
If the husband was properly excluded as an insured under the wife's policy, there is no coverage if he did not have her explicit permission to drive the vehicle. Whether it was technically stolen or not, I suppose, is a matter for the court to decide.
I doubt the city has much chance of collecting on its claim against the wife. There is probably some collection of TN case law that addresses such a situation. Visit the law library to look for it.
Add your comment