insurance scam!

[Bubba1]

Dattebayo, When it comes to coverage for family members on an auto insurance policy, if you are not specifically listed as a driver on that policy, you may or may not be covered depending on your policy AND the state you live in. It varies. An unlisted driver may be covered for some types of claims so long as the use was not in violation of the law or the insurance contract. The occasional unexpected driver would normally be covered under a typical standard policy, but that's not a guarantee. If you are a household resident family member or a regular operator, in most states, you are required to be listed on that policy for coverage to apply in all cases. And much of that is due to reason that Eikon mentioned - RISK.

Here in PA, all licensed drivers living in the house are required on auto policies. Trust me, I looked into that when my son first got his drivers license. I would have preferred not to add him as it automatically caused my rates to go up. But I'm not willing to risk losing my coverage if he had an accident as a result of my cheating on the policy, which it what it would be considered had I not added him. You might choose to assume a risk like that and not list extra drivers, but that does not make it a valid policy.

[scotty-2-forty]

PMQ does not have to be charged, nor carry auto insurance if he in fact does not own an automobile or have a valid and current auto tag.

True ONLY if he lives in a state which does not mandate insurance.

.... And by mandating insurance you mean that a state cannot mandate any person who doesn't have a driver's license nor valid auto tag to pay auto insurance.

However, being as he is a "licensed" driver capable of driving his mother's car, then the insurance agent can and will (due to risk assessement or law, according to state regulations) charge her on her premium accordingly.

False. She only pays for individuals listed on her policy. There is no risk to the insurance company if the driver does not have insurance!

Insurance companies base their risk of insuring you on lots of factors not just driving record. They take into account whether or not you own a home and your credit rating too. If they feel it is of higher risk to have a person residing in your house that is capable of driving your car, they may increase the policy holders premium. I did not say that she is required to pay to insure him. It comes down to whether he is listed on her policy simply as another licensed driver living in the same household, OR is actually on the policy as an insured driver.

Does she have to pay it? Maybe; depends on the state and/or agency.

False. She does NOT have to pay for anyone she does not want to cover on her policy.

That was in reference to her paying a higher premium based on risk.

Can she shop for another agent and/or carrier? Yeppers.

True.

For the most part. My replies are in italic.

[Dattebayo]

NO, see, if the company decides it's not a big problem, a small claim with an unlisted driver might just get passed as a courtesy, but any non-listed person behind the wheel who was allowed by the driver means generally any accident will not be covered.

There is no law in PA or any other state saying that all licensed drivers have to be insured in a house. If you find something, post it up and we'll discuss.

[Encryptshun]

Insurance mandates are not per household, they are per driver. A dependent may be covered under his/her parents policy (if the insurance company supports that service). In order to be listed on the policy of a parent, you must 1) prove you live with them the majority of the time; 2) be listed as an "occasional driver" on one or more of their covered vehicles; 3) log less than x number of driving miles in that/those vehicles per month. If the driver moves away, TAKING THE CAR WITH HIM (even to college), the insurance company can (and usually will) disallow the driver to be covered on the parent policy and instead require a separate individual policy for that driver listing them as "primary driver" of that vehicle. This is very expensive, of course, since that policy is not determined on the age and record of the parents but the age and record of the driver.

In Illinois, for example, you cannot get your license renewed (license, not plates or tags) unless you provide proof of insurance. That could be a named policy or a dependent policy. The liability for proof of insurance is on the part of the driver -- always.

This means that a parent can kick a child off their insurance at any time for any reason, but is restricted from adding or keeping them on the policy. This should make the premium go down, and if it doesn't there are even other agents of the same company that would be happy to write you up as a new customer and tranfer your policy over to their agency.

[snwbrdr435]

Having no insurance on you or your motorcycle is stupid.

[Bubba1]

NO, see, if the company decides it's not a big problem, a small claim with an unlisted driver might just get passed as a courtesy, but any non-listed person behind the wheel who was allowed by the driver means generally any accident will not be covered.

There is no law in PA or any other state saying that all licensed drivers have to be insured in a house. If you find something, post it up and we'll discuss.

No. since you're the one who claims to know it isn't so, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

[Dattebayo]

NO, it's not up to me since everyone first came in claiming there was a law in the first place. I am only the second for third person to refute said claim.

[scotty-2-forty]

There is no law in PA or any other state saying that all licensed drivers have to be insured in a house. If you find something, post it up and we'll discuss.

I'm unsure who you are replying to, but Florida is a "no-fault" state and requires PIP and PDL (Personal Injury Protection and Property Damage Liability). PIP covers "certain licensed drivers who drive your vehicle with your permission." So anyone who is a licensed driver in your household can drive the policy holder's vehicle, which is exactly why the insurance companies in this state ask if there are any licensed drivers in your household at or over the age of 16. No, they do not have to have their own policy unless they have a vehicle or tag in their name, but they MUST be listed on your policy as other drivers in your household for the unforeseen event that they might cause or be involved in an accident with the policy holder's vehicle. If they are to be removed from the policy holder account, they must then show proof that they have insurance with another carrier. This is a method by which Florida trys to ensure that licensed drivers carry insurance. Basically, there must be proof somewhere down the line that the licensee has some sort of coverage behind the wheel of a 4-wheel or more vehicle. How do I know? Because I've been there, done that more than a few times.
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/frfaqgen.html

[DudeZ]

dattebayo: forum idiot

[scotty-2-forty]

Insurance mandates are not per household, they are per driver. A dependent may be covered under his/her parents policy (if the insurance company supports that service). In order to be listed on the policy of a parent, you must 1) prove you live with them the majority of the time; 2) be listed as an "occasional driver" on one or more of their covered vehicles; 3) log less than x number of driving miles in that/those vehicles per month. If the driver moves away, TAKING THE CAR WITH HIM (even to college), the insurance company can (and usually will) disallow the driver to be covered on the parent policy and instead require a separate individual policy for that driver listing them as "primary driver" of that vehicle. This is very expensive, of course, since that policy is not determined on the age and record of the parents but the age and record of the driver.

In Illinois, for example, you cannot get your license renewed (license, not plates or tags) unless you provide proof of insurance. That could be a named policy or a dependent policy. The liability for proof of insurance is on the part of the driver -- always.

This means that a parent can kick a child off their insurance at any time for any reason, but is restricted from adding or keeping them on the policy. This should make the premium go down, and if it doesn't there are even other agents of the same company that would be happy to write you up as a new customer and tranfer your policy over to their agency.

^This.

[Dattebayo]

dattebayo: forum idiot

DudeZ: forum retard

We make quite a couple. Wanna make babies?

[scotty-2-forty]

Having no insurance on you or your motorcycle is stupid.

... and ^ this.

[scotty-2-forty]

dattebayo: forum idiot

DudeZ: forum retard

We make quite a couple. Wanna make babies?

Just go through the motions!

[Dattebayo]

There is no law in PA or any other state saying that all licensed drivers have to be insured in a house. If you find something, post it up and we'll discuss.

I'm unsure who you are replying to, but Florida is a "no-fault" state and requires PIP and PDL (Personal Injury Protection and Property Damage Liability). PIP covers "certain licensed drivers who drive your vehicle with your permission." So anyone who is a licensed driver in your household can drive the policy holder's vehicle, which is exactly why the insurance companies in this state ask if there are any licensed drivers in your household at or over the age of 16. No, they do not have to have their own policy unless they have a vehicle or tag in their name, but they MUST be listed on your policy as other drivers in your household for the unforeseen event that they might cause or be involved in an accident with the policy holder's vehicle. If they are to be removed from the policy holder account, they must then show proof that they have insurance with another carrier. This is a method by which Florida trys to ensure that licensed drivers carry insurance. Basically, there must be proof somewhere down the line that the licensee has some sort of coverage behind the wheel of a 4-wheel or more vehicle. How do I know? Because I've been there, done that more than a few times.
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/frfaqgen.html

That's a round-a-bout way of proving your point. To get to the meat of it: No, it's not required to insure someone who does not drive the car.

That's what I said, and that's what that right there says. You don't have to "prove you have coverage with another company" if you don't own a car and have no intention of driving one. That's bull and you know it. These laws only relate to those showing intention to drive.

[DudeZ]

DudeZ: forum retard

We make quite a couple. Wanna make babies?

Just go through the motions!

love you scotty!!! haha

and dattebayo, please man. find something better to do than argue about things you know little to NOTHING about.

[scotty-2-forty]

dattebayo: forum idiot

I wouldn't say that. Grumpy and opinionated, yes ... idiot, no.

[Bubba1]

NO, it's not up to me since everyone first came in claiming there was a law in the first place. I am only the second for third person to refute said claim.

Dave, If you decide not to provide any evidence to support your disagreement, then the discussion simply ends in a stalemate, with the majority of us still believing you are wrong (and vice versa). If that's okay with you, it's okay with us.

[Dattebayo]

and dattebayo, please man. find something better to do than argue about things you know little to NOTHING about.

This convinces me that you are a pretty little girl with pink pom-poms and a little tu-tu. Also, I bet you like hairy men.

[Dattebayo]

NO, it's not up to me since everyone first came in claiming there was a law in the first place. I am only the second for third person to refute said claim.

Dave, If you decide not to provide any evidence to support your disagreement, then the discussion simply ends in a stalemate, with the majority of us still believing you are wrong (and vice versa). If that's okay with you, it's okay with us.

You don't get me here. I came in simply after the first guy said "there is a law". Now given your argument for why I should show the proof, shouldn't that person be first in line?

[scotty-2-forty]

That's a round-a-bout way of proving your point. To get to the meat of it: No, it's not required to insure someone who does not drive the car.

That's what I said, and that's what that right there says. You don't have to "prove you have coverage with another company" if you don't own a car and have no intention of driving one. That's bull and you know it. These laws only relate to those showing intention to drive.

I'm not proving a point other than providing facts. If you have a drivers license, you show intent to drive. What is the bull that you say I know?

[DudeZ]

and dattebayo, please man. find something better to do than argue about things you know little to NOTHING about.

This convinces me that you are a pretty little girl with pink pom-poms and a little tu-tu. Also, I bet you like hairy men.

WOAH... stop trying to fit me into your little fantasy land there with pink pom-poms. FREAK!

Also, I bet you like hairy women.

[scotty-2-forty]

@ the recent turn of events in the thread!

And @ Dattebayo, who said "there is a law", and to what were they refering to? There's a lot going on in this thread.

[Dattebayo]

You show intent to drive just for having a licence? Okay, well what about if you live in a rental house? Hmm?

Should your roommate pay you for insurance even tho he takes the bus? How about if you just lost your car in an accident? Should you pay for insurance on driving nothing until you get money for a new one? I got many more...

[Dattebayo]

And @ Dattebayo, who said "there is a law", and to what were they refering to? There's a lot going on in this thread.

YOU did! Sorry, I paraphrased: insurance-scam-t520440.html#p5940781

[DudeZ]

Why dont we all show our proof on the count of THREE? ok go... 1-2 - - - - - - 3!

[scotty-2-forty]

You show intent to drive just for having a licence? Okay, well what about if you live in a rental house? Hmm?

Should your roommate pay you for insurance even tho he takes the bus? How about if you just lost your car in an accident? Should you pay for insurance on driving nothing until you get money for a new one? I got many more...

Uh, yeah ... if you obtain a "drivers" license, you show intent to uh ... drive. I wouldn't imagine it's a hunting or fishing license ... nope, it says "drivers".

And WTF are you talking about? What does living in a rental house have to do with this? If you are on anybody's policy as a licensed driver living in the same household you show intent to drive. The rest of your statements above make the drugs your taking seem tainted ... get your money back.

[Encryptshun]

Just to further clarify (because it's confusing), any driver, upon request from a law enforcement official, must be able to produce proof that the VEHICLE he or she is driving is properly insured per the mandated minimums of the state, and that he or she is permitted to drive the vehicle in the first place (which is a function of your insurance company and the type of vehicle).

Therefore you can certainly have a driver's license without insurance. You cannot, however, DRIVE unless you are covered on the policy of the vehicle you are operating. This is why when you rent a car they want you to buy an insurance waiver from them or agree to pay for all damages incurred in the case of an accident.

I said earlier that Illinois required proof of insurance to get or renew your license. I was wrong.

[scotty-2-forty]

And @ Dattebayo, who said "there is a law", and to what were they refering to? There's a lot going on in this thread.

YOU did! Sorry, I paraphrased: insurance-scam-t520440.html#p5940781

No I did not. I stated, and I quote, "However, it does not negate the fact that if you are a licensed driver claiming homestead to the house in which your mother lives she must legally list you as a licensed driver living in the same home." - What that says, is that she must list any other licensed drivers in the house. It DOES NOT say that by law that license holder MUST be a policy holder even if they do not own a vehicle. What "there is a law" are YOU refering to, or how are you percieving this? The way in which you reply to all these threads lead to confusion ... you're not helping in the way you think that you are.

[scotty-2-forty]

PMQ, I hope somewhere in this bastardized thread you got something that may assist you. I have to go for my long drive home now and probably won't get back on until tomorrow. Play nice everyone.

[PoorManQ45]

PMQ does not have to be charged, nor carry auto insurance if he in fact does not own an automobile or have a valid and current auto tag.

True ONLY if he lives in a state which does not mandate insurance.

I'm confused. Are you saying that I need insurance if I have a license?