by vampire_annikki » Sun Jan 16, 2011 06:36 pm
I have some very specific questions. heres the story:
My husband and I have moved into my dads house, just had a baby,needed some help.We dont have a car,he let me drive his, my husband not really at all because he has no license.
Well one day our family friend who was a State Farm agent goes to my dad and says that, this is her whole claim:
because my husband is currently prohibited from acquiring a license at this time,he has some fines and whatnot, that because of that and BECAUSE I'm married to him AND we both 'live under his roof' that if his insurance company (USAA) knew we were even living there, that his rates would either sky rocket or they would drop him as a client altoghether.
Is this true?
If money wasn't a matter, could I get on his insurance if I just paid him the difference?
If we got our own car and own insurance would his rates still be normal even if we are still living there?
I just really don't see an insurance company company dropping someone when thay can just charge them instead.
My husband and I have moved into my dads house, just had a baby,needed some help.We dont have a car,he let me drive his, my husband not really at all because he has no license.
Well one day our family friend who was a State Farm agent goes to my dad and says that, this is her whole claim:
because my husband is currently prohibited from acquiring a license at this time,he has some fines and whatnot, that because of that and BECAUSE I'm married to him AND we both 'live under his roof' that if his insurance company (USAA) knew we were even living there, that his rates would either sky rocket or they would drop him as a client altoghether.
Is this true?
If money wasn't a matter, could I get on his insurance if I just paid him the difference?
If we got our own car and own insurance would his rates still be normal even if we are still living there?
I just really don't see an insurance company company dropping someone when thay can just charge them instead.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 03:26 pm Post Subject:
They may drop the policy as they don't want the risk that your husband may very well be driving the vehicle. If he has access... then he could drive the vehicle (this happen all of the time). They carrier is then on the hook as they have to provide financial responsibility to the owner (so the pay the claim anyway). They can't just charge more as they are admitted to the state and can only change certain rates. They can't rate someone who can't drive. That is, how can they charge a premium for someone who that can't provide coverage to? It's not legal. They also can't just increase your fathers rates because the state only allows them to charge so much. So their only option is to not write the policy.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 09:35 pm Post Subject:
They can't rate someone who can't drive. That is, how can they charge a premium for someone who that can't provide coverage to? It's not legal.
Excellent explanation. The insurance company's alternative to cancelling/non-renewing your father's policy is to specifically EXCLUDE your husband as an insured. If he drives the vehicle, there will be NO COVERAGE at all, and both he and your dad will be liable for any third party damages.
You can always obtain your own personal auto insurance -- even if you have no vehicle of your own -- it's called NAMED NON-OWNER coverage. But it would probably be less costly for you to be added to your father's policy and exclude your husband.
As tcope has said, the insurance company does not have to renew the coverage for your father or anyone else.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:05 pm Post Subject:
is to specifically EXCLUDE your husband as an insured. If he drives the vehicle, there will be NO COVERAGE at all, and both he and your dad will be liable for any third party damages.
The problem with this and the reason why few carriers will do this is that they will probably still need to extend coverage to the owner of the vehicle. So they would basically be providing coverage with no charge.Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:27 pm Post Subject:
When a driver who is excluded on a PAP is found to be driving at the time of a claims event, there is NO COVERAGE under the policy -- the vehicle owner is 100% at risk for all liabilities. Similar in nature to a stolen vehicle, but somewhat different.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:33 pm Post Subject:
The issue with this is that it goes against public policy. That is, the only party harmed by this is the public and it goes against the very core of financial responsibility. So many states won't allow a carrier to allow a party to obtain the insurance they are required to obtain but then waive that coverage under certain situations. It goes against the reason the person obtains coverage. It allows the vehicle to be operated without insurance. It serves to penalize only the innocent party that was struck by the driver. This is why most carriers will simply elect not to provide coverage. They don't want to deal with this issue.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:57 pm Post Subject:
This is why most carriers will simply elect not to provide coverage. They don't want to deal with this issue.
Agreed. Like Sgt Schultz, "I see nothing, I hear nothing!"
Add your comment