when my son passes his test can he drive on my insurance without being a named driver
Total Comments: 17
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 04:04 am Post Subject:
Will he be covered? 50/50 chance. Depends on the carrier and the wording of the policy. When it hits someone (and he will) and causes $5000 in property damage and the person gets an attorney for their injuries, do you really want to roll the dice on coverage?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 09:04 am Post Subject:
You can insure a car you don't own, so he might be able to get his own policy. I do not own my car (my parents do--never got around to changing the title), but I have insurance for it. But then again, I don't live in the same household as the owners, and they do not themselves have a policy on the car, so your situation is a little different. Worth looking into, though.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 03:45 pm Post Subject:
You can insure a car you don't own
I do not own my car
In some states the owner can be held liable for the use of the vehicle as well as the driver. If you injure someone, your parents could be sued.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:28 pm Post Subject: huh?
"You can insure a car you don't own" ??????
Insurable interest?
Carriers do not check the actual owner until you get to calim time.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:24 am Post Subject:
"You can insure a car you don't own" ??????
Insurable interest?
Insurable interest does not mean ownership alone. It means that you need to suffer some type of loss/damage if you did not have use of the vehicle.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 06:00 pm Post Subject:
Insurable interest (in auto insurance) means you have to have a "financial interest" in the property. If a person does not own a vehicle, he/she cannot insure a vehicle. But a driver has an insurable interest in him/herself and can obtain "named, non-owner" coverage for those occasions when they drive a borrowed or rented vehicle. In auto insurance, both the driver and the vehicle are "insurable", in essence, separately. But there is not double coverage when the named driver is driving the insured vehicle.
As to the original post, if you son is not a named driver on your policy, the language of the policy will either exclude him (high probability) or might not cover him for more than the state liability minimums. You would be best advised to inform your insurance company at or prior to the time he is licensed to drive.
He can obtain "named, non-owner" coverage on his own, but this would not eliminate your liability in the event he causes damage or injury with your owned property (the vehicle).
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 06:12 pm Post Subject:
A person who does not own a vehicle can have an insurable interest in the vehicle. If they can show that the loss of the vehicle would cause them a loss than they have an insurable interest. Not having an insurable interest in something would make a policy more of a bet than insurance.
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 07:14 pm Post Subject:
the loss of the vehicle would cause them a loss
If you don't own the vehicle, what possible personal liability is there? What other insurable loss could result from one's relationship to a non-owned auto? No one can sue you for negligence because you don't own the vehicle. I fail to see the point. You'll have to provide a more concrete illustration to explain your statement.
We know that in the commercial property/casualty world, there is coverage for an employer whose employees use their own vehicles for the convenience of the company, and it protects the company against LIABILITY losses as the result of the employees' negligence ("culpable negligence" is the cause of action). But the company has no insurable interest in the PROPERTY of the vehicle, per se, and the loss of the non-owned vehicle does not represent any direct PROPERTY loss to the company. They might suffer a temporary loss of revenue, but supplying a temporary replacement vehicle fixes the matter. Not an insurable loss.
Perhaps, the only situation I can even remotely imagine is a married couple that jointly owns a home, but only owns their vehicles in the name of one of the two spouses. But even then, aren't both spouses going to be listed as drivers/insureds? It would be a ridiculous waste of money to have two policies covering the same vehicle, for no added benefit.
The whole point here is, as I understand it is the OP's liability if his son drives the car. The son can get liability insurance to protect him when he drives any vehicle, but he cannot get property coverage on Dad's owned vehicle. It's a basic tenet of P&C insurable interest: it must exist at the time the policy is issued AND at the time of a loss. Without his name on title, Jr has no property interest in the vehicle during Dad's lifetime.
Auto insurance is LIABILITY coverage. It does not cover loss of income, such as, "I don't have a ride to the liquor store" or, "Without Mom's car, I can't go to the job interview, and if I don't make it to the interview, I won't get hired, and look at all the income I would lose." Those are not liability losses, just inconveniences, and are not insurable.
If you want PROPERTY coverage, you have to OWN the property. You cannot insure your "dream car" unless it's actually in your driveway . . . no insurance company will pay a claim for the dream car lost in a nightmare. You cannot get PROPERTY insurance on your neighbor's property, not their home, not their car.
It's not the same as having an insurable interest in the loss of a future income stream as in life insurance, such as, "If Auntie Em (who's funding my education) dies, I won't be able to finish college." That kind of loss, where insurable interest normally does not exist, it insurable.
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 07:25 pm Post Subject:
I do not own my car (my parents do--never got around to changing the title), but I have insurance for it.
And who's the registered "owner"? If it's not you, you have either misrepresented the insurable interest to the insurance company or you have a named, non-owner policy. Otherwise, lawfully, only Mom and Dad can insure the vehicle -- because, as the legal owners, they are liable for damages caused by their property.
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 02:54 am Post Subject: exactly correct MaxHerr
I have seen Allstate decline claims because the policyholder did not own the car. They misrepresented it to the carrier and nothing was covered since they did not own the car. If in doubt i ask for a copy of the registration or title,
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 04:04 am Post Subject:
Will he be covered? 50/50 chance. Depends on the carrier and the wording of the policy. When it hits someone (and he will) and causes $5000 in property damage and the person gets an attorney for their injuries, do you really want to roll the dice on coverage?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 09:04 am Post Subject:
You can insure a car you don't own, so he might be able to get his own policy. I do not own my car (my parents do--never got around to changing the title), but I have insurance for it. But then again, I don't live in the same household as the owners, and they do not themselves have a policy on the car, so your situation is a little different. Worth looking into, though.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 03:45 pm Post Subject:
You can insure a car you don't own
I do not own my car
In some states the owner can be held liable for the use of the vehicle as well as the driver. If you injure someone, your parents could be sued.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:28 pm Post Subject: huh?
"You can insure a car you don't own" ??????
Insurable interest?
Carriers do not check the actual owner until you get to calim time.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:24 am Post Subject:
"You can insure a car you don't own" ??????
Insurable interest?
Insurable interest does not mean ownership alone. It means that you need to suffer some type of loss/damage if you did not have use of the vehicle.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 06:00 pm Post Subject:
Insurable interest (in auto insurance) means you have to have a "financial interest" in the property. If a person does not own a vehicle, he/she cannot insure a vehicle. But a driver has an insurable interest in him/herself and can obtain "named, non-owner" coverage for those occasions when they drive a borrowed or rented vehicle. In auto insurance, both the driver and the vehicle are "insurable", in essence, separately. But there is not double coverage when the named driver is driving the insured vehicle.
As to the original post, if you son is not a named driver on your policy, the language of the policy will either exclude him (high probability) or might not cover him for more than the state liability minimums. You would be best advised to inform your insurance company at or prior to the time he is licensed to drive.
He can obtain "named, non-owner" coverage on his own, but this would not eliminate your liability in the event he causes damage or injury with your owned property (the vehicle).
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 06:12 pm Post Subject:
A person who does not own a vehicle can have an insurable interest in the vehicle. If they can show that the loss of the vehicle would cause them a loss than they have an insurable interest. Not having an insurable interest in something would make a policy more of a bet than insurance.
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 07:14 pm Post Subject:
the loss of the vehicle would cause them a loss
If you don't own the vehicle, what possible personal liability is there? What other insurable loss could result from one's relationship to a non-owned auto? No one can sue you for negligence because you don't own the vehicle. I fail to see the point. You'll have to provide a more concrete illustration to explain your statement.
We know that in the commercial property/casualty world, there is coverage for an employer whose employees use their own vehicles for the convenience of the company, and it protects the company against LIABILITY losses as the result of the employees' negligence ("culpable negligence" is the cause of action). But the company has no insurable interest in the PROPERTY of the vehicle, per se, and the loss of the non-owned vehicle does not represent any direct PROPERTY loss to the company. They might suffer a temporary loss of revenue, but supplying a temporary replacement vehicle fixes the matter. Not an insurable loss.
Perhaps, the only situation I can even remotely imagine is a married couple that jointly owns a home, but only owns their vehicles in the name of one of the two spouses. But even then, aren't both spouses going to be listed as drivers/insureds? It would be a ridiculous waste of money to have two policies covering the same vehicle, for no added benefit.
The whole point here is, as I understand it is the OP's liability if his son drives the car. The son can get liability insurance to protect him when he drives any vehicle, but he cannot get property coverage on Dad's owned vehicle. It's a basic tenet of P&C insurable interest: it must exist at the time the policy is issued AND at the time of a loss. Without his name on title, Jr has no property interest in the vehicle during Dad's lifetime.
Auto insurance is LIABILITY coverage. It does not cover loss of income, such as, "I don't have a ride to the liquor store" or, "Without Mom's car, I can't go to the job interview, and if I don't make it to the interview, I won't get hired, and look at all the income I would lose." Those are not liability losses, just inconveniences, and are not insurable.
If you want PROPERTY coverage, you have to OWN the property. You cannot insure your "dream car" unless it's actually in your driveway . . . no insurance company will pay a claim for the dream car lost in a nightmare. You cannot get PROPERTY insurance on your neighbor's property, not their home, not their car.
It's not the same as having an insurable interest in the loss of a future income stream as in life insurance, such as, "If Auntie Em (who's funding my education) dies, I won't be able to finish college." That kind of loss, where insurable interest normally does not exist, it insurable.
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 07:25 pm Post Subject:
I do not own my car (my parents do--never got around to changing the title), but I have insurance for it.
And who's the registered "owner"? If it's not you, you have either misrepresented the insurable interest to the insurance company or you have a named, non-owner policy. Otherwise, lawfully, only Mom and Dad can insure the vehicle -- because, as the legal owners, they are liable for damages caused by their property.
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 02:54 am Post Subject: exactly correct MaxHerr
I have seen Allstate decline claims because the policyholder did not own the car. They misrepresented it to the carrier and nothing was covered since they did not own the car. If in doubt i ask for a copy of the registration or title,
Add your comment