Insurance?

[summit]

I am helping my little cousin by having her move in with me. She's going to school and has a part time job. My question is if it is possible to insure her to have her able to drive my bucket and still keep me as owner of the car? Or do I have to "sell" her the car and tell her to get her own insurance on it?

I'm in California. Thanks for all the help!

 

[nickbits]

Add her as a driver to your policy. Call your agent or do it online depending on the co. You don't need to sell it to her.

 

[iamwiz82]

I have no idea about other states, but in Michigan unless you explicitly deny a person by name then the car is covered no matter who is driving.

 

[fstime]

Yes, it is usually the car that is covered, not the name.

However, if you wish OP, you can simply call your insurance company and add her as a "part time driver." This may lead to a rate increase depending if she is a younger driver or has a claim history.

You only need to do this if her permanent address which is stated on her license is the same as yours. Usually insurance companies require all licensed drivers living in the same household to be included on the insurance policy unless they have their own separate insurance. They use the DMV datebase for finding out this information.

So as long as her address isn't the same as yours, you should be okay not including her, if something does happen, you will have to state you willingly gave her the keys and let her borrow the car temporarily. If she will be driving your car very frequently, you should probably add her as a part time driver under your policy.

 

[phucheneh]

If she doesn't have her own car/policy, you're inviting trouble, IMO. All the stuff above is generally correct with regards to the vehicle owner's insurance being primary coverage, but the borrower's insurance is supposed to be secondary, and could be forced to pick up a tab if the primary insurer denies the claim.

Said primary insurer is a lot more likely to deny if said borrower has no primary vehicle that they can cite as being inoperable, requiring the loaned use of the car. Instead, they're just going to see that it strongly appears that this person is using the vehicle as a non-temporary primary vehicle, and they're not on your policy, so go pound sand.

 

[Meghan54]

If she doesn't have her own car/policy, you're inviting trouble, IMO. All the stuff above is generally correct with regards to the vehicle owner's insurance being primary coverage, but the borrower's insurance is supposed to be secondary, and could be forced to pick up a tab if the primary insurer denies the claim.

Said primary insurer is a lot more likely to deny if said borrower has no primary vehicle that they can cite as being inoperable, requiring the loaned use of the car. Instead, they're just going to see that it strongly appears that this person is using the vehicle as a non-temporary primary vehicle, and they're not on your policy, so go pound sand.

Bullshit.

 

[phucheneh]

Another quality constructive post.

Care to elaborate on how it's a good idea to let any random person with a license daily drive your car? Have you ever actually dealt with an insurance company? Are you still on your parents' policy? 🙄

 

[iamwiz82]

Another quality constructive post.

Care to elaborate on how it's a good idea to let any random person with a license daily drive your car? Have you ever actually dealt with an insurance company? Are you still on your parents' policy? 🙄

You clearly assume that whatever rules and laws that govern your state apply to all.

 

[phucheneh]

You clearly assume that whatever rules and laws that govern your state apply to all.

Oh, right, 'cause it's not like I just told him to take it into consideration, and it's not like someone replied to me with 'actually, in California...'

People can a) share relevant info/experience b) correct info they believe is wrong or c) keep their mouth shut.

He did none of those. Nor did you. I advise going with option (c).

And frankly, even if someone steps in with 'this is California law,' it would be pretty retarded to trust something like that a stranger on the internet and not err on the side of caution.

But hey- whatever. OP, if your cousin wrecks your car, it'll totally maybe be okay, so do nothing. I guess that's the wisdom of the day.

 

[jaedaliu]

My experience with 3 different insurance companies in California:

If you let someone drive your car, they're covered by your insurance....

..... UNLESS .....

said person lives at your place. You need to add them to your coverage.

I think it's an assumption of use thing. If they live there, it's assumed they use the car all the time. And if they don't, it's assumed to be a rare occurance freak accident type of thing.

Call your insurance company to see about adding her. If they require her to get her own insurance on the car, you can do a relative-title-transfer at the DMV (or AAA for shorter lines if you have membership)

 

[nickbits]

^^^^^ that

 

[Throckmorton]

AAA doesn't require you to add the person to your insurance, they don't exclude anybody even if she lives with you. At least that's what I was told.

 

[summit]

My experience with 3 different insurance companies in California:

If you let someone drive your car, they're covered by your insurance....

..... UNLESS .....

said person lives at your place. You need to add them to your coverage.

I think it's an assumption of use thing. If they live there, it's assumed they use the car all the time. And if they don't, it's assumed to be a rare occurance freak accident type of thing.

Call your insurance company to see about adding her. If they require her to get her own insurance on the car, you can do a relative-title-transfer at the DMV (or AAA for shorter lines if you have membership)

thanks guys. calling my insurance co now.