I read a lot of car forums and this part was in the legal section of one
Pulled over without car insurance? No problem!
All states in the United States require that you have auto insurance to operate a vehicle if you're caught without auto insurance you can lose your license for up to 6 months and/or a minimum of a $1000 fine.
There is a way to get out of this though. Depending on the state you live in, you have anywhere from 10-30 days to provide proof of insurance after an incident.
To go your local insurance dealer and ask if they offer Bond Insurance. If they offer Bond insurance, ask them if they'll backdate it for you. This means that they'll give you a card saying that you had insurance for previous months, when you really didn't. Of course, you're going to have to pay for these months. A Bond Insurance is an auto insurance that covers a particular driver with liability on any car that he drives the rates are usually high, but its often cheaper for people with bad driving records because it doesn't cover a particular car.
Once you get your backdated Insurance Card, you're home free.
Now, can is it possible to backdate car insurance? And if so, how often can it be done?
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:46 pm Post Subject:
You CANNOT get backdated insurance for your car.
You can visit the CA Dept of Insurance website, click on NEWS, and see years of press releases, some of which talk about people who were involved in traffic collisions without insurance, went home and called (or went online) the insurance company and purchased insurance --after the accident -- then turned in a claim for a collision that happened minutes AFTER the coverage took effect (the same collision that occurred an hour or so before the coverage was issued). Those press releases describe people who were ARRESTED for INSURANCE FRAUD.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 04:17 pm Post Subject: puma sneaker
Hello i'm new to here....
Glad to see you all !
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:52 pm Post Subject:
Man... what is the deal here?
You cannot, period, get backdated car insurance. That's it. Final. The end. Finuto. Finis. Done. Over. Quit talking about it. Not possible. Fuggetaboutit. Not happening.
Is this clear enough? For all of you that really think you can backdate car insurance after you've had an incident? Get an agent that has a clue.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 06:40 am Post Subject:
I agree, it is not possible to take insurance in back date, if anyone can provide that then it will be a serious offense.
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 09:30 am Post Subject: Yikes
OMG! I can't believe the petty insults toward one another and the egos! Shame on you. It's just sad that people communicate to one another in this fashion. :?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 02:08 pm Post Subject:
LMAO you guys are getting all bent out of shape over a simple question: can you get backdated insurance? If so give me details.
I am not a cali resident and dont know CA laws, or care to, and I dont know all the laws in my state either. I dont sell insurance nor do I practice law. And I am fully aware that spell check dont catch all my mistakes (if I didnt do it intentionally).
I dont know anyone who has bout or sold backdated insurance but it can & does happen, and its illegal so you shouldnt.
Imagine if you will:
An insurance company that does every thing on paper and then later (if at all) puts it into a computer. The insurance form was filled out on the 11th, or is that the 17th? Ok it happens but not on purpose. The first payment is $100 but the customer got no change back from $150, oh well it happens but who would do that intentionally? Did the insurance get backdated? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Was it intentional? Possibly.
Most of the time your not going to run into this because most ins company’s do everything electronically so date and times are registered automatically.
If your insurance lapsed due to non-payment you may, that’s right MAY, still be covered if you pay right away. With my personal situation I had payment due on the 4th or 6th of the month and I didnt have the money to pay. On the 10th I got into an accident where my tire came off and hit a Sheriff in his off duty car, I happen to know him too lol. I payed the insurance a few hours later. The insurance company payed the claim and I did not receive any tickets. Why? Because my policy went into a Cancellation mode but was not canceled yet. Most company’s I have dealt with give you a grace period of X amount of days to pay an over due bill before you have to pay for a “new” policy, and as long as you pay the over due amount it will still be covered.
This is NOT backdating nor is it Illegal. Its the same reason your power and phones stay on if you haven’t payed your bills on time. Not every company will due this but the ones I have personally dealt with will.
As for the seat-belt laws?
Yes it makes ins lower because less payed out to injury but the Primary Reason to have them is $$$. if I dont wear my seat belt I am not hurting you. I am not making the road more dangerous. And in an accident it does not increase the likely hood of injury for anyone but my self. It is mostly a way to make the roads OVERALL Safer Statistically (gov't & police look better) and drive up revenue.
Btw as a side note: in my state the cops were giving incentives based on the number of seat-belt tickets they were given during the 1st year we had the new law.
If you got a no ins ticket buying the policy the same day will in may cases get the ticket thrown out or reduced. However, with electronic notification in CA this would likely be a problem. I had a 3 tickets at once totaling $740 ticket for 1) no Ins in vehicle 2) no Registration in vehicle and 3) no Front Plate (required here no everywhere) I had it reduced to a flat $50 because I brought in proof of Ins, and Reg and I had front plate in vehicle but not visible, I just mounted it. The reason the cop gave me for not toeing the vehicle was because it was registered to my mom at the time. But really it was just a training exercise for a rookie or they would not have pulled me over in the first place.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 09:59 pm Post Subject:
dont know anyone who has bout or sold backdated insurance but it can & does happen, and its illegal so you shouldnt.
It does not happen for the reason you state -- it is not lawful to do this. No insurance company does it, and no reputable agent ever would consider doing it.
An insurance company that does every thing on paper and then later (if at all) puts it into a computer. The insurance form was filled out on the 11th, or is that the 17th? Ok it happens but not on purpose. The first payment is $100 but the customer got no change back from $150, oh well it happens but who would do that intentionally? Did the insurance get backdated? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Was it intentional? Possibly.
Entirely implausible scenario. Paid $150 for a $100 premium, but received no refund? Makes no sense. Excess premium is either refunded immediately or it will be credited to future premiums due.
Insurance company receives application on the 11th, inadvertently keys in "17" then makes a correction later. That's not backdating, and it's not unlawful. Backdating is applying on the 17th and asking for coverage to begin on the 11th. That's unlawful in every state. That's what LMAO is all about.
I had a 3 tickets at once totaling $740 ticket for 1) no Ins in vehicle 2) no Registration in vehicle and 3) no Front Plate (required here no everywhere) I had it reduced to a flat $50 because I brought in proof of Ins, and Reg and I had front plate in vehicle but not visible, I just mounted it.
No, you didn't get "three tickets all at once", you received one citation with three violations listed. You paid $50 as a dismissal fee, but none of that is germane to the discussion because YOU HAD INSURANCE and the vehicle actually was registered at the time.
My wife went to traffic arraignment court just two weeks ago here in CA to ask for a trial on a speeding citation. While we were there, in a state that "requires" proof of financial responsibility when operating a motor vehicle on the highway, and generally demands that drivers be licensed, more than 40% of the defendants (there were 103 citations on the calendar for that session) were cited for NO PROOF OF INSURANCE/FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and about half of those were also cited for NO DRIVER LICENSE IN POSSESSION at the time.
Only a couple of all those folks actually had insurance at the time of their citation (but there were some who had it now, and had their fines reduced by 50%), and only two or three of the 23 or 24 who had no driver license at the time of their citation were actually licensed drivers on that day. Of the rest, some were driving with suspended licenses, and others still had no driver license when they showed up for arraignment. A few now had licenses and had their fines reduced by 50%.
And you would have thought that after the judge laughed out loud at the first person who said, "I was on my way to get the insurance when I got stopped by the police," the others who were even thinking of using that excuse would try something different. But, no, six different people tried that one on the judge -- who hears that same thing day after day after day. Nothing new under the sun, as the Bible tells us.
if I dont wear my seat belt I am not hurting you. I am not making the road more dangerous.
Well, let's explore this misunderstanding a bit. Do you have health insurance to pay for your head injury or the damage the airbag will do to your head, neck, and chest? Yes? No?
If the answer is NO, then you are hurting me, and others like me. Because it's our Social Security and Medicare contributions that are being stolen to pay for your Medicaid expenses, and our general tax dollars that are being stolen to pay the state's administrative expense, and our inflated health insurance premiums are the result of your treating physicians and surgeons, and the hospitals in which you receive your care not being compensated properly under the Medicaid system, so they are forced to charge everyone artificially inflated amounts for healthcare expenses, which, in turn, affects insurance claims and premiums. I have that coverage, and it is hurting me, like it's hurting 285,000,000 other folks in America today.
Because you and others like you, with your naive attitude about life, liberty, and the pursuit of driving without a seatbelt makes you all very dangerous. And you are making the road more dangerous because you are driving with a careless attitude . . . one which certainly extends to your driving and texting at the same time. I spend at least half my time behind the wheel being forced to look out for you and those like you, instead of concentrating only on what's in front of me.
If your insurance lapsed due to non-payment you may, that’s right MAY, still be covered if you pay right away.
Now, the fact that you are not an agent accounts for your miscommunication here and in the words that followed this statement above. Your policy paid the claim because it was NOT LAPSED. It was, to your good fortune, in its GRACE PERIOD. Had you gone beyond the grace period without the payment of your premium and then the accident occurred, you would have learned an expensive lesson, because THEN you would have had no coverage at all. And for that, there is no amount of money you can pay to get the coverage reinstated back to the time of the collision or earlier.
In five or ten years, when you turn age 30, you may wizen up by then. You might even be a licensed insurance agent at that time, and your knowledge might be improved as a result.
But really it was just a training exercise for a rookie or they would not have pulled me over in the first place.
LMAO!!
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 01:19 am Post Subject:
LMAO you didnt even take the time to understand the post
no one would pay 150 for 100 policy and get nothing back but if you were doing something illegal like back dating it they would. What I was saying is the person got the policy on the 17th and they said it was on the 11th.
It does not happen for the reason you state -- it is not lawful to do this. No insurance company does it, and no reputable agent ever would consider doing it.
do you even take the time to think about what your saying? I dont think so because you just pointed out exactly what I was saying. No “REPUTABLE” agent would ever do it. But we are not talking about reputable people, DUH!!! a Non-reputable agent would do it for a fee in a system that could allow it. But with the invent of modern technology it is almost impossible, almost.
No, you didn't get "three tickets all at once", you received one citation with three violations listed.
Your right I did get three violations on 1 ticket, and I did have insurance at the time. However, the point I was making is that tickets do get reduced, through out, and dismissed as you pointed out. My brother got a no seat-belt ticket and it was dismissed because it was written up wrong, and he did not have to pay any fees at all.
It was, to your good fortune, in its GRACE PERIOD.
no please mr ins agent please explain it for all of us what is the grace period all about? Because how my agent explained it to me was I pay Feb. 6 for the period from Feb. 6 to Mar. 6 and if I get in an accident on say March 15th without paying for Mar. to Apr. then it is lapsed ins. Unless, that is, if I pay the ins withing the Grace Period which we will say for argument sake last until the 20th. So if I pay on the 19th it is covered but if I pay on the 21st it is not. Thats the way the explained it to me, is it different in the so called great state of California?
[quote:35c7e176e0]if I dont wear my seat belt I am not hurting you. I am not making the road more dangerous.
Well, let's explore this misunderstanding a bit. Do you have health insurance to pay for your head injury or the damage the airbag will do to your head, neck, and chest? Yes? No? [/quote:35c7e176e0]
Misunderstanding? I dont think so. In fact I completely disagree with you. To start with I do have medical insurance. And in fact if I am on the road I should have insurance and if it is more than minimum it likely covers injury and I am covered. Not only that Obama care Requires everyone to get medical coverage or if they cannot afford it then it will be provided to them (IN LAYMEN TERMS) and this goes into affect I think the year after Obama is or is not re-elected. So by 2013 everyone of those 285,000,000 adults will answer 'Yes Mr Ins Agent I have Ins Thank You Very Much!'
Now to the real question should we prevent people from doing Stupid/Dangerous activity’s? In addition to preventing people to not ware their seat belt, shouldnt we make sure they dont ski-dive, face jump, open ocian swim, rock clime without, or even with, safety ropes? All of this potentially could rise our Ins payments. We shouldnt let anyone do anything that is dangerous, in fact they shouldnt be in a vehicle cause that could cause our Ins payments to go up if they are involved in some kind of accident.
LMAO that is exactly what you are saying. And that is not what should happen. Wearing your seat belt does NOT Make it less likely to be in a crash, it does NOT make you a better driver and it does NOT make the Other drivers Safer. It should not be a ticket-able offense for the driver.
Now before anyone else brings it up Children not wearing their seat belts in the vehicle that is a debatable question and we are off topic already.
But really it was just a training exercise for a rookie or they would not have pulled me over in the first place.
the reason I say that is because of the way it went down. I will try to put it in a way you may understand and get a feel for the situation.
I was driving south in the city and stopped at a red light. At the same time a police car came through the light and saw me without a front license plate he turned around and pulled in behind me. It was an old veteran cop with a very young cop that had not been on the force very long. The veteran cop told the young one what to do and he did it.
At the time I was in a small old 2 door rice burner with me driving, my brother in the back seat behind me and his double base taking up the hole passenger side of the vehicle. In order to get to the glove compartment he had to lift and pull back on the instrument. In the glove box was the license plate and should have been the registration and ins, and of course it was not. The veteran officer told me that my car looked stolen and would have impounded the car but my mom has the same last name as me so he just gave me the ticket.
I talked to a friend of mine who is part of the same department he implied he new the 2 officers and said he was training the new guy or he probably would not have pulled me over.
Also I had taken that rout dozens if not hundreds of times before.
Sorry for the rant about that but that is why I wouldnt have been pulled over if he wasnt training the officer.
In five or ten years, when you turn age 30, you may wizen up by then. You might even be a licensed insurance agent at that time, and your knowledge might be improved as a result.
LMAO........LMAO,... you dont have a clue how old I am or how much knowledge I have. You dont know how much schooling I have or if I have studied law/ins. You do know because I have said so, that I am not a lawyer or an ins agent but thats it. You dont know that I was in college majoring in Engineering until the money ran out. You dont know jack ish about me so dont assume im not wise just because I disagree with you and the not so great state of California!
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 03:39 am Post Subject:
a Non-reputable agent would do it for a fee in a system that could allow it
This is what you don't understand. There is no system that allows it. There are unscrupulous people (with or without insurance licenses) that take other people's money and give them what LOOKS LIKE insurance -- a card, even a contract -- but, the reality is, there is no insurance in force. Not backdated, not forward dated, not NOTHING. So the whole premise that kicked off this thread a long time ago is FALSE. There is no such thing as BACKDATED auto insurance, and your whole little scenario was a waste of time. $100 - $150 - WHATEVER. All BS.
no please mr ins agent please explain it for all of us what is the grace period all about?
Simple. A grace period is the period of time AFTER THE DUE DATE one has to pay their premium and continue their coverage without interruption. Claims occurring in the grace period are payable minus the premium due and unpaid. If premiums are unpaid at the end of the grace period, the policy lapses and there is no coverage FROM THE PREMIUM DUE DATE, not the date of lapse. Each state's insurance code describes the grace period for different types of insurance. In CA, for auto insurance, the grace period is 15 days. If due on the 6th, you have until midnight on the 21st to pay, but at 12:01am on the 22nd, without making the payment, you are uninsured as of the 6th. Most states use 15 days for auto policies.
Not only that Obama care Requires everyone to get medical coverage or if they cannot afford it then it will be provided to them (IN LAYMEN TERMS) and this goes into affect I think the year after Obama is or is not re-elected. So by 2013 everyone of those 285,000,000 adults will answer 'Yes Mr Ins Agent I have Ins Thank You Very Much!'
Yeah, you don't understand this either. But that's a different thread you can find elsewhere on this site.
In addition to preventing people to not ware their seat belt, shouldnt we make sure they dont ski-dive, face jump, open ocian swim, rock clime without, or even with, safety ropes?
Sure, why not? No argument there. It's just that far more persons drive around town on a regular basis than all those other things combined, so there's a greater desire to protect people from themselves when it comes to driving without seatbelts, or child restraints (that you apparently are not in favor of either), or small children in the front seat.
Wearing your seat belt does NOT Make it less likely to be in a crash, it does NOT make you a better driver and it does NOT make the Other drivers Safer
Nice try, changing the subject, that is. Why not address the real essence of my response. The "misunderstanding" has to do with the financial harm those drivers and occupants represent to me, to you, to all insurance consumers. If you have health insurance, terrific, the remarks were not addressed to you specifically, but to those who don't and also refuse to wear their seatbelts. It has to do with society being forced to cover their medical claims.
Those who get ejected and killed, they take us off the hook. The rest? They cause you and me and others like us who have health insurance to pay more than we should have to pay. I made that point, and you chose to ignore it. [The skydivers, mountain climbers, skiers, snowboarders, and others -- yes they affect our premiums, too, but not to as great an extent as uninsured drivers who don't wear seatbelts. That's a statistical fact, and the cost of insurance is based on statistics.]
It should not be a ticket-able offense for the driver.
You're right, why pick only on the driver? CA and many other states recognizes that and here even passengers can be cited for not wearing their seatbelt. We are an equal opportunity state. So come here and drive without your seatbelt, and prepare to be cited and fined. We're also broke (again, a different discussion), so after the penalty assessments and court fees, the fine for a first-time seatbelt violation is about $200. More for #2.
I was driving south in the city and stopped at a red light . . .
Cute story, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the heart of the matter. You were cited for traffic offenses, went to court, proved everything was as it was supposed to be, and the court did what it was supposed to do, dismiss the incident and you paid the convenience fee for that. Guess what? If you were following the law in the first place, training exercise or not, you never would have been cited. That's why the whole story is meaningless.
The veteran officer told me that my car looked stolen
That's the "probable cause" for the stop, the missing license plate was the whipped cream and cherry.
you dont have a clue how old I am or how much knowledge I have. You dont know how much schooling I have or if I have studied law/ins.
You're absolutely right. And I did not cast any aspersions on you.
But you know what? I don't need to know that you aren't a lawyer or an insurance agent (whether you told us or not), or even that you would be an engineer by now if you hadn't quit school. That's all unimportant. Because it's true about most other people, too.
The only thing I need to know about you is your attitude toward risk. And you've laid that all out quite nicely.
You believe that whatever is OK for YOU, if it doesn't hurt YOU, is no one else's business. Fine. I can live with that because lots of people have that same misguided attitude, and I've worked alongside some of them.
But, if you want to live here and drive here, and want the state to grant you the privilege of driving a motor vehicle, to issue you a driver license to do so, to register your vehicle to be able to operate it on the public highways, then YOU have to do what the state requires -- such as wearing a seatbelt and buying insurance (or proving financial responsibility with cash or a bond) -- or suffer the consequences. Your failure to comply with the law has ramifications beyond the confines of your front seat.
The alternative is sometimes called anarchy.
I also know this: you're too young and inexperienced in the ways of this world to understand it all. You've been educated by socialist-leaning teachers and college professors who prey upon such naivete to indoctrinate their immature, captive audiences. Capitalism is evil. Big business is evil. Insurance companies are evil. College professors have the real answers. The middle class in America is dead. It's the Poor 99% vs. the Wealthy 1%.
When I was told that in a post-graduate class on "Diversity in the Classroom" at Cal State Northridge in 2004, I threw it all back in the face of the professor right then and there, in front of 30 other students in the class, all but a handful of us who were under age 25. I wasn't going to be told something that was not true, and I had the truth in front of me on my laptop screen at the moment.
Because young people like you don't think for yourselves, and because you're afraid to challenge authority, you sit and listen and take all that crap and make it yours, and then you expect the world to come around to your faulty way of thinking. It's been tried before, it's been called communism, and the Soviet Union no longer exists because of that very thing. China may not be far behind.
But we might beat China. Here it's been labeled "the dumbing down of America" -- and it's beginning to show its ugly face. We have seen it most recently in the plethora of "Occupy" encampments in various places across the country. No coordination, no real message, just people with too much time on their hands and wanting others to come to their pity party. Their lists of demands was laughable, for the most part.
The reality is this: if you don't like having to conform to the laws of society, because this is the United States, you can (1) work the process to change the laws and hope that there are enough like-minded people to agree with you, or (2) move to somewhere else in the world where you get to make the rules and everyone else must follow them.
That would be a pretty lonely place.
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 03:30 am Post Subject: monster beats sale
Owner would like to thank .
Add your comment