Is it the CAR or the DRIVER that is insured???

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 05:15 am Post Subject:

Hi..Its good to hear that you're from Michigan!
I think the Auto Insurance laws are pretty much clear and beneficial for you. The No-Fault Auto insurance is a must for all driving over there. Yeah, I agree that you don't really have too much to choose while buying a policy but yeah you really have the choices to pick up while you're gonna pay for it!
You're really protected with retrieval of lost incomes and medical costs under this No-Fault Law. Yes, insuring the vehicle assures that those who are injured in the accidents would be compensated. This law also helps restricting the use of the Tort Liability Law which has been not so effective over the time.
Regards,
Fatman.

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 05:20 am Post Subject:

You are actually discussing two different things, but the short answer is yes... you are insuring the vehicle.

Bottom line, the state laws state that the _vehicle_ needs to be insured, it never refers to a driver. That is the bottom line when it comes to insurance.

Without getting into too much detail, the insurance policy does insure the vehicle and most anyone using it with your permission. As far as asking about drivers, this is mainly for policy rating purposes. As mentioned above, this is where the two different subjects come up. However, there can also be penalties under the policy for not listing everyone in your household on the insurance applications (this usually amounts to a non-renewal and not a denial of coverage... unless the policy is recinded (cancelled as never in-force)).

When an insurance company rates a policy they almost always rate the highest risk driver with the highest risk vehicle. As this is the highest liability the carrier will be faced with. Some insurance companies give a little more consideration in this area.

However, the policy _does_ also offer coverage to those that are listed. For example, when you drive someone elses vehicle, your policy provides _you_ with liability protection (however, it's excess over the owners insurance in most cases).

[Now I'm just waiting for the ""I think your policy will tell you", I want my money"" post]

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 06:52 am Post Subject:

Yeah hi! I too feel the no-fault thing has really worked well since 1973. The said benefits that come in the form of medical treatment assistance and wage loss compensation have always been enough for the victims. Now they don't need to bother about the financial crisis till the lawsuits get settled. I think you guys should be thankful. Its good to see your queries getting answered through a vivid platform over here. Pour in more of what comes to your mind.:)
Till then, ArindamSenIndies

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 07:04 am Post Subject:

Hi Mrs. Biggo!
See all have been said ...before I could actually come across your query!
With this kinda potentiality in the form o' Fatman, TCope, ArindamSenIndies.....we'd be able to solve all o' em...don't we ?Thanks to all of you guys for this wholesome research that brings us together.
Huh, now just gotta have the priviledge to add a few words for you.
As you can see, the three coverages are mandatory for you in the form of Personal injury, Property and Residual Liability and I presume you have them in place already. Now as you've expressed your concern regarding the rise of premiums, I'd like to say in this regard, that the rise in rates have been quite reasonable as compared to many of the other states. This might sound absurd but when you look at it in terms of the benefits
available it really doesn't sound that much harsh. And yes, the premium hike has been commensurate with the rise in lawsuit expenditures, mounting costs associated with all medical benefits. There are also the factors like the inflated healthcare costs and the auto repair costs to contribute towards it. Am I sounding logical ??
Do lemme know,
Sasha T.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:21 am Post Subject:

See, I did not have long to wait.....

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 05:29 am Post Subject: Thanks for active participation!!

yes true...I'm sure now our forums have become too quick to react!!
Thanks and best wishes for all of you guys. Lakemen

Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 06:04 am Post Subject:

You shoud see my boss! 4 kids driving his premiums are crazy!!! Yes having young drivers makes the cost go up becuase if for some reason they drive one of your cars they are more likely to get in an accident.

Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:40 pm Post Subject:

:wink: Thank you all for your insights and responses...I am using all of the info that I am gathering to pummel my agent! :lol:

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 04:27 pm Post Subject: insuring car vs vehicle

Can anyone help? I live in Tx. My daughter is in school in another city. She totalled her car to which I still have title ownership. (I actually had the title transfer papers in my hand when she called me about the accident). The car was impounded and now I am being charged for the cost of impounding and storage Neither driver was cited as the intersection is known to have low visibility. Both students had liability only. So, it sounds as if we are going to just lose the car. Could I have added that vehicle (only) to my existing total coverage policy with her carrying liability for herself to have avoided this?

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 06:45 pm Post Subject:

I don't know of any insurance companies that will allow a vehicle to be added without a charge for liability insurance. The vehicle would be on the policy so the state could require the insurance company to provide liability coverage for this reason. Plus it does not make sense to obtain collision coverage through one carrier and liability through another.

Your daughter could have added collision coverage under her policy.