Ok my mom has a car, and i don't work yet, but she doesn't want me driving anywhere farther than like 10 miles from my house because she is afraid that if i get pulled over, or something happens, i'm technically driving with no insurance. Is that right? Even though my mom has insurance, its just under her name and i'm not in it. Aren't i allowed to drive the car anywhere if i have permission to risk her insurance?
Car insurance???
- Thread starter The Godfather
- Start date
Your mom let's you drive with no insurance?:shocked:
If you're not a driver named on her policy, you have no insurance. Stop driving until you get some!
If you're not a driver named on her policy, you have no insurance. Stop driving until you get some!
Ok. Yeah thats what she told me. I mean i talked to this insurance agent guy and he said that in the jurrisdigtion of like 15 miles from my house, even if i'm pulled over there'd be no problem.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,984
- 12,537
- 136
Why not just get added onto your mother's policy? My parents' auto insurance requires that anyone with a driver's license be listed on the policy, whether they are driving or not (I'm away at school, so no car for me, but I'm still on the policy).
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,984
- 12,537
- 136
Yeah i know. Its expensive to add me to the policy. We're with Allstate or something. It will add like 200$ per month.
In some states, such as CA, your car is insured, not you. They revert you back to the lowest level of insurance if you're not named. The car is still insured.
In Ca the lowest level was 15k/30k or something like that.
In Ca the lowest level was 15k/30k or something like that.
amdhunter
Lifer
- May 19, 2003
- 23,332
- 249
- 106
You think that, but you have to take into account that there are retarded drivers everywhere. No matter how good a driver you are, there is always some idiot that will either run into you, or do something that you simply can't avoid.
I never drive anyones car for this reason, and I don't let anyone drive my cars either. Don't want to put up with crap from the [already hard to deal with] insurance companies.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
Depends - even if you're not explicitly named on the policy, you may still be considered "insured" if you are considered a "dependent/relative" - you have to have the same residency as her, you have to have permission to drive, etc.
But insurance laws very depending on the state/the company you're insured with. You might want to look into it, but in your case, I don't think you'd be in much trouble even if you're liable for a motor vehicle accident - generally. Look it up.
But insurance laws very depending on the state/the company you're insured with. You might want to look into it, but in your case, I don't think you'd be in much trouble even if you're liable for a motor vehicle accident - generally. Look it up.
Sounds like the young, dumb and full of cum talking right there.
When I was a kid I thought the same way.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 65,943
- 14,338
- 146
However, in many cases, (I live in Kahleeforneeya) certain drivers may be excluded from the coverage by the insurance company unless a much higher premium is paid. Should that excluded driver have an accident, the insurance company will NOT pay a dime. (we went through this just this past year with our adult daughter who is living with us. She had a suspension a couple of years ago and the insurance company has excluded her from driving any of our vehicles...unless SHE gets her own coverage...at a MUCH higher rate.
I don't know where you live, but in most states, you HAVE to be added to the policy to have coverage. While you MAY get by with driving without insurance, SHOULD "Shit Happen" and you get into an accident, (even one that's not your fault) your mom will be personally liable for any damage to the other vehicle and any medical costs...You're setting her up to get sued for mega-bux...
If you can't afford insurance, walk or take the bus. There are already far too many uninsured drivers on the roads...
I don't think you should be giving this kind of advice without knowing the facts. I'm in California and I know if my kids names aren't on my policy and they have an accident then there will be some coverage problems. Thats why insurance is so much more money for young kids, they are a much bigger risk. If its like you say then anyone in my family could drive my car without the insurance company knowing and my rates would never go up. Not going to happen.
And here is the problem with insurance in the US. You should be insuring the car not the drivers. This is the most ineffective way of insuring I can imagine. Let's try insuring individual employees instead of the corporation. Same kind of idea. Milk the sh!t out of the policy holder, and then provide deductibles and more exclusions than a lawyer could decipher.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,346
- 32,897
- 136
In four states I've lived the car is covered, not the driver. So if I give a friend permission to drive my car and the friend causes an accident, it is covered. However, kids are different because, if they drive at all, they are likely to be regular drivers of the car covered. If parents regularly allow kids to drive the car then, yes, they should inform the insurance company and face the higher rates. The policies I've had would have covered any accidents caused by said kid, even if the kid was not named on the insurance, but then one of two things would happen. The first is that they jack up the rate t account for covering a kid with an accident history or the second, they would dump me as a customer.
Edit: I should add that I've never heard of a policy that reverts to the base liability coverage if an unnamed driver is at fault and I'm one of those people that reads their policy. Learn something new every day.
And here is the problem with insurance in the US. You should be insuring the car not the drivers. This is the most ineffective way of insuring I can imagine. Let's try insuring individual employees instead of the corporation. Same kind of idea. Milk the sh!t out of the policy holder, and then provide deductibles and more exclusions than a lawyer could decipher.
but you see, when you insure the car, there's no way of telling whether the driver is qualified to drive the car. it's the person behind the wheels that causes the accident, not the car. if you can insure the car itself, wouldn't a 4-year old, or someone who's above 18 with multiple DUI records justified to drive the car?
and godfather... wasn't he the kid who whined about how her mom won't let her open his christmas present early or something like last year?
"i won't hit anyone" lol
And that is why you insure the car, unless you plan on installing a computer to do an ID and driving record check on a day to day basis you are at the mercy of the drivers and state to report any and all changes in the households liscened drivers and any persons who could posibly have access to every vehicle in the US.
compman25
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2006
- 3,767
- 2
- 81
Also, most states even if you aren't the one who caused the accident, you are still at fault because you are driving when you should not have been. So you can be rear ended and you'll be at fault because had you been following the law you wouldn't have been in a position to be hit.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter