by Guest » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:57 am
My son is a licensed driver and insured under my policy - he's 17. He used my car yesterday and, unbeknownst to me, let his friend borrow the car. The friend hit a pedestrian and sped off. When my son found out he went to the scene of the accident and called the police.
I'm freaking out here. My son got a ticket for allowing someone without a proper license (the friend is 16 and has a learner's permit.) The friend was arrested.
I'm worried that my insurance is not going to cover this -they have yet to return my call. I am a single mom and do not own a home and have no assets. In fact my company just closed down after 30 years and I am getting by on unemployment. I'm afraid, considering the circumstances, that my insurance will not cover this accident and I will be sued.
I have no money and don't know what I'm going to do.
I'm freaking out here. My son got a ticket for allowing someone without a proper license (the friend is 16 and has a learner's permit.) The friend was arrested.
I'm worried that my insurance is not going to cover this -they have yet to return my call. I am a single mom and do not own a home and have no assets. In fact my company just closed down after 30 years and I am getting by on unemployment. I'm afraid, considering the circumstances, that my insurance will not cover this accident and I will be sued.
I have no money and don't know what I'm going to do.
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:04 am Post Subject:
OK...you're right and I'm wrong Lori (oooooh, that one hurt)
According to ISO forms, the language is pretty clear. It simply states (re: permissive use coverage) that an insured (doesn't have to be a named insured) can grant permissive use, and states nothing about the permissive use driver actually holding a valid license.
Additionally, and this kind of surprised me, direct permission does not have to be given. The ISO coverage form states that an insured would be "any person who reasonably believes that they are 'entitled" to drive the vehicle".
Kinda scary, but there ya go! :D
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:48 am Post Subject:
ah come on that really didn't hurt did it? :D I remember early in my career learning the term ''implied permission'' which really freaked me out....never did I see a claim denied when the one in possession of the vehicle had permission....and gave it to another...which brought me to threating my kids with their lives if they EVER let anyone drive one of their cars! :wink:
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 03:21 pm Post Subject:
So we've established coverage, which is great. However, the OP has not mentioned anything about the injury sustained by the pedestrian victim. I certainly hope that the OP will return and fill us in on this info as well as what she learned when/if her insurance company returned her call.
She could certainly still be exposed to a suit if she carries low limits and the pedestrian was seriously injured.
Oh, and SDchargersfan regarding:
However.....how about this. the person who has a Permit can drive with a Licensed driver in the car. Does 'this' not apply, to the situation?
The way I'm reading this there was not a licensed driver in the car at the time of the accident.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 03:40 am Post Subject: accident
I thought the son WAS a licensed driver and the friend had ONLY a permit. Did I read it wrong?
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 10:18 am Post Subject:
sdchargersfan, you're correct...but the 'permitted' driver would've required a licensed (plus additional restrictions) driver in the vehicle...I think that was the point that Fishman was getting at.
Add your comment