Insurance company is responsible for $1500 in DMV fees

by Guest » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:37 pm
Guest

I moved from Nevada to California for a period of 3 months during the summer. I was unsure whether or not I was going to stay, but to be safe, I transferred my car insurance to a California Branch of State Farm. I questioned the insurance agent if the insurance would be okay if I kept my NV registration since I had just renewed my NV registration in April. He said it was fine and that the insurance and registration do not need to be in the same state. Upon returning to NV, I was pulled over and told my plates were suspended. He let me off with a warning since I had the paperwork to show I'd been paying my premiums; however, upon investigating the matter with the DMV, they told me since I never registered in CA, my NV registration went for 3 months without valid insurance. Now I owe $250 per month for the 3 months of having no NV insurance ($750), and I have to get an SR-22 for the next 3 years ($720). Is there any kind of recourse that I have against State Farm and my CA agent?

Please help, I am very upset and cannot even believe this is happening.

Marissa

Total Comments: 5

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 02:55 pm Post Subject:

Yes, you sue the CA insurance agent for the present damages plus future damages (your premiums are likely to be higher due to the SR-22 filing. This is a classic example of negligence -- the CA agent gave you bad advice based on his lack of knowledge of NV law.

Unfortunately, you will have to sue the agent in a CA court, which means having to come back to CA long enough for the hearing (10-15 minutes during a three-hour Small Claims Court session).

Try writing to the agent -- via USPS, Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested (so you have a record of the delivery) -- and asking for full indemnification. See what response you get. If none, or one that does not accept responsibility, then you sue.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:49 am Post Subject: Thank you

Okay, that's what I thought. Since State Farm is an interstate company, I took his word thinking that he would know interstate requirements. I'm in contact with State Farm, but the specific branch in CA that I had coverage is giving me the run around so I doubt they would respond to an indemnification request. It is definitely worth a shot though.

In court, I would sue for negligence of the Agent and the Branch? Or just the Agent? Also, the claim of negligence would arise from a breach of their fiduciary duty as my insurance agent, correct?

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 01:38 am Post Subject:

In court, I would sue for negligence of the Agent and the Branch? Or just the Agent?


The "branch" as you call it might bear "vicarious liability", but the agent who misled you is who you need to sue specifically. It is always wise, however, to sue everyone who might bear liability for your loss and let the court decide who is responsible, so you would add the agent who owns the office where the transaction took place, and perhaps even State Farm as the insurer who appointed the licensed producers as their agents.

Also, the claim of negligence would arise from a breach of their fiduciary duty as my insurance agent, correct?


It is not really a breach of "fiduciary duty", since the agent forwarded your premiums to the insurance company, and there is no allegation that your money was diverted for some other purpose. The agent is simply liable for negligently misrepresenting the coverage as satisfying the requirements of Nevada law. You justifiably relied on the agent's "superior knowledge" of California law and the agent's concealment of his lack of knowledge of Nevada law, thereby exposing you to the added penalties under Nevada law.

Your Nevada coverage would have applied to your driving in California. You would not have been in danger of being cited in California for failure to show proof of financial responsibility.

Your only problem with California law might be associated with your failure to register the vehicle here upon taking up residence in this state, and to obtain a California driver license (both of which are supposed to occur within 10 days of taking up residence in the state). You can argue that it was never your intent to become a permanent California resident, that you were simply here for the purpose of taking temporary employment, and so you did not feel compelled to surrender your license plates and driver license, because you still considered yourself a legal resident of Nevada.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 02:31 am Post Subject: Sue??

Honestly unless you have it in writing or some form of proof it will be extremely hard to win in court. Its all he said she said and that wont fly in California. Sorry you may just be out of luck

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 02:40 am Post Subject:

Its all he said she said and that wont fly in California.


You may be mistaken. In a he-said-she-said situation, the court will side with the party that tells the best tale. But this story involves a licensed insurance agent, who has additional responsibilities under the CA Insurance Code. And one of those is to put the right product in front of the client at the best price, and another is to be KNOWLEDGEABLE when it comes to insurance laws.

An agent confronted with a situation that he or she is uncertain how to answer is expected to research the matter to be able to provide the proper answer. So, it's not as simple, or as hopeless, as you imply.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.