hopingtothrive t1_iybwxrr wrote
If the mother's car was insured any one she loans the car to is also insured. The insurance follows the car, not the driver. Mother's insurance needs to handle this.
My daughter totaled my car. My car was insured and Allstate paid. I loaned my car to my daughter, which is totally fine.
MyFreeAccount OP t1_iybxoh7 wrote
The car was only covered with liability insurance, since it was not being driven because he was out-of-state. The mother's insurance company argues that he is not covered.
LeCordonB1eu t1_iybzxf9 wrote
So I feel like the information you're sharing is very inconsistent with each of the comments. In your original post, you made it sound like the car was under operation by the mother/grandmother and that it was in good standings in terms of insurance except that your niece was no longer on there. If the car was being stored and not operated, and only had enough insurance to protect it in its parked place, then it is no surprise that the insurance company is not willing to cover for the damages that was caused while in operation.
MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd7sn6 wrote
The car was parked while he was gone. It was insured... liabilty. I never mentioned anything about a niece.
MikeWPhilly t1_iycyl4n wrote
Was the son out of state with the car in his new location? Sorry but nobody is going to be able to help you if you don’t give the full story. If you loan a car to a friend and they crash it the car is covered by your insurance. Insurance covers the car. From all your posts either the mother is not giving you the full story or you are not giving us all the pertinent details. Insurance will try and cut corners and they may push back on some claims but for them to outright deny like this - suggests critical details are missing.
MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd631u wrote
The car was left in CA, parked and not being driven. He drove it when he returned for a visit.
MikeWPhilly t1_iyd72p2 wrote
So filling in the blanks is this essentially the car was in California where the son lived and the mother lives in a different state? or does the mother live in cali and it was parked in her driveway and he drove it then while there? The first option the insurance is probably saying it was the kids car, with him in cali where he is living and you weren’t properly insured.
The second option though doesn’t make sense and the insurance company would have to give a reason to deny the claim. My guess is it’s the first but the context still isn’t very clear.
Edit - read some of your other comments. The son was home for a month? Why was he home? Had he just left school and/or moved in temporarily? It sounds like they he was home for a very long period of time and the insurance company was trying to say he was a household member. A household member that you removed to lower costs. So this seems to be the rub but not enough detail on why he was home, how long etc..
MyFreeAccount OP t1_iydbl4f wrote
They both lived in CA. The nephew went to another state for 6 months. He returned to CA for about a month or so, when the accident happened. He was likely to stay in CA after the visit, but it wasn't a sure thing.
MikeWPhilly t1_iydf2pp wrote
Yeah this is likely the issue. So the son had no other residence other than the home in CA at that point? If so he’s screwed. You basically had somebody who technically lived there (based off yoru comment he was staying I assume he had no apartment in the other state anymore) and you never updated the insurance for the household.
halifire t1_iydx7qv wrote
This sounds like the correct reasoning. There's a good chance this kid is considered a household member and should have been added back to the policy shortly after returning home. There's a good chance insurance won't pay for this.
roox911 t1_iyd88vu wrote
Liability insurance is literally what covers the accident. The 54k bill is the Liability.
It won't cover the damage to their vv or his injuries, but it covers the van and is occupants. That's the point of it.
theoriginalharbinger t1_iychpz8 wrote
Nope. Kid might have been a named exclusion on the policy (common) or parents could be running California minimums (5k property only).
There's lots of ways current or former household members could end up not covered.
SueSudio t1_iybxcty wrote
Insurance rates are typically much higher for people under 25. If the driver doesn't matter why would anyone disclose a junior driver to their insurance company?
LeCordonB1eu t1_iybzl2c wrote
Because the insurance companies usually knows who is living in the household. Living in the household together means more likelihood of driving the vehicle, so the insurance companies usually ask you to either include them in your insurance or for a written statement that they would not drive the vehicle.
SueSudio t1_iyct3w9 wrote
Exactly, but the previous statement says that it doesn't matter who is driving the car,.
LeCordonB1eu t1_iycukx2 wrote
And that is true as well. Anyone can drive your car, given that they have a license. That's what being vehicle insured means...
There are cases where the insurance follows the driver, but it's just more common to see insurances that stay with the designated vehicle. In the case of the latter, a homeless you just ran into could drive your car with permission and would still be covered by the insurance.
SueSudio t1_iycv0ob wrote
Then why is any driver information relevant to the car insurance other than "who is paying"?
LeCordonB1eu t1_iyczoj0 wrote
The only driver information that the insurance companies ask for is for those that live in your household. I already went over this in my above comment.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments