insuring a car tht isnt registered to you

by Guest » Thu Jan 17, 2013 03:47 pm
Guest

I purchased a car and it is only registered in my name. My boyfriend (daughters father) has it insured on his policy but I am listed as a driver. Is this legal? I wnt to make sure I am covered if something happens

Total Comments: 7

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:21 pm Post Subject: insuring someone else's car

Generally insurance is not allowed on a vehicle that is registered in someone else’s name. You’re not even a resident spouse. The insurer seeks for the insurable interest during claims. If you get into an accident, and your boyfriend claims on his policy, the company can back out by saying “That’s not even your car”!! Mostly, it’s considered as fraud or misrepresentation. Consult with the agent ASAP.

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 01:52 pm Post Subject:

Insurable interest is not just ownership. You need to show that you suffer from the loss of the vehicle. If this is a vehicle that you use all of the time and rely on it for transportation then you have an insurable interest in it.

If there was damage to the vehicle and that damage was covered, your boyfriend would be sent the payment not you.

But we are really talking about liability here... not damage to the vehicle. You'd be covered for liability as you are listed on the policy.

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 01:42 am Post Subject:

95% of insurance companies require that the registered owner of a vehicle be the named insured. Your boyfriend cannot insure a vehicle that is not his. You would need to be the named insured and he could be listed as a driver on your policy. The only company I know, that does not require this, is Progressive. Please call your agent.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 01:00 am Post Subject:

Generally insurance is not allowed on a vehicle that is registered in someone else’s name.


This is just plain wrong. "Named non-owner" insurance provides coverage for just such a circumstance.

95% of insurance companies require that the registered owner of a vehicle be the named insured. . . . The only company I know, that does not require this, is Progressive.

The second part of this statement contradicts the first. Progressive is one company and is not 5% of all companies. So obviously "katieb" does not know what she is talking about, but is instead making up something she believes to be true. It is not.

A person may obtain "Named Non-Owner" coverage to protect him/her from covered claims that they suffer as the result of driving someone else's owned vehicle -- rented or borrowed. It is often provided on an "excess" basis, meaning that any underlying primary insurance would have to be exhausted or a claim denied per contract before the NNO policy would pay. In the case of a rented vehicle, however, it would be considered primary insurance unless the renter also purchased the "CDW" and Liability coverage from the rental agency. (The NNO policy does not cover collision/comprehensive claims.)

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:33 am Post Subject:

So, as tcope has pointed out, if the boyfriend needs to have insurable interest in the car, he needs to drive it on a regular basis. Does he?

The OP has posted that her car is insured on her boyfriend's policy. Can it be assumed that he has a car of his own of which he's the primary driver?

And correct me if I'm wrong. The "Named non-owner" insurance is mostly for those who use a rental or use a borrowed car often. Apart from the liability, it doesn't come with comprehensive or collision coverage.

Neither the OP nor her boyfriend will need the "Named non-owner" insurance in this case, right?

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 02:14 pm Post Subject:

95% of insurance companies require that the registered owner of a vehicle be the named insured.



Sounds like a 100% made up percentage. :roll:

Actually, almost no insurance company asks about ownership when insuring a vehicle. So the number is more like the opposite and much lower. That is, around 0% ask about ownership.... not 95%.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 03:00 pm Post Subject:

That is, around 0% ask about ownership.... not 95%.


Agreed. Insurance companies are far more likely to ask about a lender's interest than the owner's interest. And the reason is simple: there is no "incontestability" feature in auto or homeowner's insurance that forces the insurance company to honor its contract after two years.

State insurance laws require the there be insurable interest "at the time" of both policy issue and claim for the contract to be valid. Even if the policy has been in existence for several years, if the insurance company discovers there was/is no insurable interest, they may avoid the claim, and their only liability may be to return unearned premiums.

As for named, non-owner coverage, collision and comprehensive are not included because, as previously stated, it is considered "excess" insurance, only providing a benefit when the underlying coverage is exhausted -- if the liability coverage is not high enough to cover a claim (property damage or personal injury to others), then the NNO kicks in.

Mercury Casualty Co. (and some other insurers) auto policies automatically reduce liability coverage to state minimums when the vehicle is being operated by a non-named driver, like your next door neighbor whose car is in the shop today, even if you're paying for $300,000 coverage.

When a vehicle is covered by collision/comprehensive, it is only covered (normally) for Actual Cash Value, so there is no purpose served by extending those coverages under a NNO policy -- there is no "excess" loss. When it is not covered for collision/comprehensive, NNO does not "improve" the coverage.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.