by Puppet » Sat Jun 14, 2014 06:28 am
If the "liability Ins" is set to protect the other person, How does it protect them if the person who caused the accident was named an "excluded driver" on the register owner's Ins.policy.
When the law in California enforces the "liability ins" law...Who enforces the law when the insured knowingly allows an "excluded driver" to drive their vehicle who caused an extent amount of damage to a vehicle of another party.
When the law in California enforces the "liability ins" law...Who enforces the law when the insured knowingly allows an "excluded driver" to drive their vehicle who caused an extent amount of damage to a vehicle of another party.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 07:30 am Post Subject:
I'm not really sure I can make sense of that post.
But liability insurance really does not protect the "other person". It protects the insured buy paying the other person and settling a claim. I think this is where you started to go wrong.
The state has financial responsibility laws. These laws are what requires people to have some type of insurance or put up a large bond. Courts also rule on things that go against public interest. Since most states require insurance, the state usually also makes it difficult for an insurance company to get out of providing coverage. Almost always the state would require an insurance company to pay even if the driver were excluded (not always).
Keep in mind, the damages are owed by the at fault party. If they happen to have insurance to foot the bill, great. But the owner/operator is still the party responsible. So even if the insurance does not pay, the owner/operator is still liable.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:00 am Post Subject:
Let me first start by saying thank you for responding to my post........
2nd let me apologize for not making sense!
My understanding of the financial responsibility law, is to where an insured has to have at least the minimum of liability coverage, which is 15/30/5.... What I meant by "protecting the other person" is the insured has a financial responsibility in case they are found at fault in an accident, has an obligation for the other driver's medical bill, or property damage they have caused through their insurance.
I asked the question only because the situation we are facing right now.
My father was involved in an accident and was found "not at fault" by the responding police officer's. The driver also admitted to the police officer that he was at fault.
Unknown to my father at the time, he was not the registered owner, but he did present an insurance card to police.
It took over 30 days to find that out!!
My father's insurance filed a claim with the registered owner's insurance.
(not that it might make a difference) but it was a totally different carrier then what the driver prestented the day of the accident?)
The registered owner's insurance is denying the claim because the driver that caused the accident is an "excluded driver" on the registered owner's policy.
Which makes the registered owner responsible, but we would have to go through the process hiring an attorney and take them to court.
I don't know how true this is... but
I also heard the owner of the vehicle would have to file a police report against the driver for "auto theft" It's her father so I don't think that will happen.
Granted, my father has the "under,uninsured" coverage on his policy which is $3500, I'm not sure how much more, but I was told that will not cover the cost of the damages that was caused to my father's vehicle? Some might say at least he didn't come out empty handed....
No he has to come out of pocket!
I'm sorry I am very upset with this whole situation, n trying to get to the point, which is :....I see my father as the "other person." He was found not at fault, has never had any points against his Dri. Lic. and his car has extensive damage caused by the hands of another, yet I feel he is not being "protected" by the laws regarding "liability insurance"
I feel it's my father's insurance responsibility to make this stressful situation the lease stressful as possible. After 49 yrs of being a customer you would think they would step up!
When she told me as soon as she get the total extent of the damage on the vehicle she'l either cut him a ck, for the $3500 or if we choose to have it fixed give it to the repair shop, but we are responsible for the balance.
That is impossible, by father is retired and on a fixed income, n Just recenlty was the victim of "preditory lending" and in order to fix that we had to let go of all luxeries, and full coverage that he did have for 46 was considered a luxery??
Any advice or knowledge of "excluded' driver will be most appreciated.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 01:53 pm Post Subject:
I feel it's my father's insurance responsibility to make this stressful situation the lease stressful as possible. After 49 yrs of being a customer you would think they would step up!
You misunderstand how property & casualty insurance works. 49 years of "being a customer" is meaningless.Auto insurance is purchased 1-year (or 6-months) at a time. Your father had 49 1-year policies. When each policy comes to an end, so does the insurer's responsibility. They might give a person a "longevity" discount, but it is not his insurance company's responsibility to make a third-party claim less stressful.
we are responsible for the balance.
Yes, that's the way insurance works. If your father had collision coverage on his vehicle (I can tell he doesn't because he has the maximum $3500 UMPD), and smashed into a wall while driving, and caused more damage than the vehicle was worth, he would be in exactly the same position. Without collision coverage, he's in a worse position.Except that in this situation, someone else is responsible for all of the damages (and if your father ends up collecting from the other parties, he will also owe the $3500 UMPD payment back to his insurance company).
I'm sorry that he has been victimized in other ways. Perhaps he's at an age where he needs someone else's intervention to prevent such things from occurring again. And if he was truly the victim in a genuine predatory lending scheme, there are now consumer protection laws that might assist him to get out from under such a loan.
You're going to have to bite the bullet on this one and find a competent attorney to handle these two issues.
Add your comment