by madamcol » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:03 pm
We were rear ended by a teenage licensed driver of a 2010 pickup truck. The truck had insurance, only the driver was "excluded" from the policy. Is there any way to force the insurance company to pay for our medical bills and repairs? Is the lienholder held liable at all? How do we go about finding out if the driver is insured on a different vehicle, thereby covering his liability on our vehicle? Thank you in advance! (we live in Texas, accident was in Texas)
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 06:01 am Post Subject: excluded driver
When an accident is caused by an "excluded driver" on somebody else's auto insurance policy. Who is responsible for the damages to a vehicle if no "uninsured , underinsured" is included in your own policy.
THAT WOULD BE THE VICTIM.....
So the registered owner's insurance is not going to settle a claim because he/she lent his/her car out to a knowingly "excluded driver"
What is the law for that in California?
And does the "registered owner's" insurance have to notify us in writing. I also heard if it's taken to court (which is why I thought Ins was put in play) the registered owner would have to file a police report for autotheft against whoever he lent his car out, even though they knowingly allowed the "excluded driver" to drive their vehicle.
The driver stated that he did have auto insurance but not for that vehicle? How do we find out if someone has insurance, and what is covered. (by law i think it would be safe to say the liability 15,30,5) I'm does that 15,30,5 law also include driving someone else's vehicle.
I was told the by my insurance that we would file a claim with the "registered owner" of the vehicle's ins. but they are not going to settle because the driver was an"excluded driver"
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 01:38 pm Post Subject:
What is the law for that in California?
It doesn't matter that the vehicle owner allowed an excluded person to drive his vehicle. He and the uninsured driver both remain liable for the damages your father suffered.I was told the by my insurance that we would file a claim with the "registered owner" of the vehicle's ins. but they are not going to settle because the driver was an"excluded driver"
"They" is the vehicle owner's insurance company, but it is not the at-fault driver or the vehicle owner. Just because the insurance company won't pay the claim doesn't mean your father has no recourse. He will have to collect from the individuals directly. A good attorney will sue both persons "jointly and severally" -- meaning a judgment against one is a judgment against both. Your father can collect 50% from each, or 100% from the one who has the ability to pay. It's the collecting that's the hard part when there is no insurance to pay the claim.And in this case, because of the degree of negligence involved -- an uninsured driver and an insured vehicle owner who knowingly allowed an uninsured and excluded person to drive his vehicle -- there is an excellent basis for punitive damages on top of the tort liability. And, it might even be possible in this instance to get the court to award attorney's fees in addition, so that your father won't have to give up the usual 33%-50% of the judgment.
This, however, does not excuse your father from failing to carry uninsured motorist coverages on his own insurance. People here in California should know that it is foolish not to do so. Just because the Vehicle Code says a person must be able to satisfy the minimum liability requirements for financial responsibility, there are only baby teeth in that law. My clients know that I consider UMPDand UMBI to be "mandatory" coverage as far as I'm concerned. This is the penalty we have to pay because the state legislature thought by requiring every vehicle and every driver to be insured, there would be 100% compliance. Legislators, by and large, are fools if they truly believe something like this.
In this instance, the law did not fail -- the vehicle involved was insured -- but there was no coverage due to policy language. The law does not acknowledge that possibility. And there is probably little the law can actually do to protect in a circumstance such as this.
Add your comment