insurance scam!

[PoorManQ45]

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.

So it is a legalized scam?

[PoorManQ45]

Having no insurance on you or your motorcycle is stupid.

I have a very generous health insurance plan

[PoorManQ45]

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.

So this is a scam that has been legalized.

How are people like me taken into consideration? I do not have a valid plate/tag on a vehicle that requires insurance. i do not drive a vehicle that requires insurance.

So to be removed from a policy I am required to provide proof that I have insurance when insurance is not required based on the vehicle that I drive as defined by the state?

[Bubba1]

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

No, you don't, as Florida does not require insurance for Motorcycle owners. But if you live at home with your mom and she owns a car, she is supposed to identify you as a listed driver on her policy.

[PoorManQ45]

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

No, you don't, as Florida does not require insurance for Motorcycle owners. But if you live at home with your mom and she owns a car, she is supposed to identify you as a listed driver on her policy.

That's the heart of this matter. Dave isn't playing nicely when he makes the request.

I've been looking for a statute or a regulation that states something like that. I haven't found anything.

If you aren't too busy would you mind taking a quick look around. My searches are coming up dry.

[tigersharkdude]

There are 4 licensed drivers in my house: my mom, brother and his fiance, and myself

my mom and I are both on each others insurance but thats because I drive her car and she drives mine occasionally. My brother is no where on her auto insurance

EDIT: state minimum coverage is liability.....all drivers must have insurance. But as stated I am the only person that my mother lists on her insurance. So there are 2 other people in our house that are NOT listed on her plan

Did your mother have to show proof of your brother's and fiance's insurance? I'm sure this may be different from FL seeing as you're in TN, but I'm curious as risk assessment for the insurance company would be prudent and smart (for the agency) at that point.

nope

[Bubba1]

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.

So it is a legalized scam?

No, not really. Adding an additional driver particularly one in the highest risk group (teen male) means the likelihood of a claim jumps significantly. That means the insurance company will want the ability to adjust the rate from their original quote to compensate for that increased risk. I don't like paying more for insuring for my son, but that's how it is.

[PoorManQ45]

No, not really. Adding an additional driver particularly one in the highest risk group (teen male) means the likelihood of a claim jumps significantly. That means the insurance company will want the ability to adjust the rate from their original quote to compensate for that increased risk. I don't like paying more for insuring for my son, but that's how it is.

If you were to exclude that person why wouldn't they fall under the same class as "other driver"?

Currently some companies allow you to exclude a specific driver from the policy, but what this does is removes ALL coverage when that person is driving, not just some coverage like if they were an "Other driver"

[Bubba1]

That's the heart of this matter. Dave isn't playing nicely when he makes the request.

I've been looking for a statute or a regulation that states something like that. I haven't found anything.

If you aren't too busy would you mind taking a quick look around. My searches are coming up dry.

I'm afraid the answer is best answered by an experienced insurance agent because, as I said earlier, the rules and laws vary by state and by policy.

I understand Dave's argument why should you have to be on your mother's policy if you don't intend to ever drive her car. It's a nice thought but impractical if you think about it. Im no insurance agent but I recognize that if that were allowed, it would create a monster loophole for every lousy driver to dodge premium increases by sneaking anonymously onto someone else's policy.

[Bubba1]

No, not really. Adding an additional driver particularly one in the highest risk group (teen male) means the likelihood of a claim jumps significantly. That means the insurance company will want the ability to adjust the rate from their original quote to compensate for that increased risk. I don't like paying more for insuring for my son, but that's how it is.

If you were to exclude that person why wouldn't they fall under the same class as "other driver"?

Currently some companies allow you to exclude a specific driver from the policy, but what this does is removes ALL coverage when that person is driving, not just some coverage like if they were an "Other driver"

Yes some insurance policies address "occasional non-listed drivers' and cover them for certain scenarios, but it;s not universal coverage for anyone that drives the car. That kinda policy costs a lot more money.

[seyath]

I'm going to put my $.02 here...
I'm an insurance agent for a major insurance company in NJ, and this question actually comes up a whole lot. As most people have stated in this thread, requirements and regulations vary from state to state, so I'm not sure of the dynamics outside of NJ.

Insurance companies look at statistics. Simple as that. Insurance for an 18 year old male is going to be higher than the same insurance for a 50 year old female with a clean driving record. Every time. Now, the 18 year old in question might have been receiving professional driving lessons since he was 5, hold professional driving licenses and be the next Ayrton Senna... doesn't matter. Statistically, the 18 year old is more likely to be an idiot behind the wheel and drive in unsafe manner than the 50 year old woman. If we were to insure based on an individual basis, everyone would claim that their children are "such a responsible driver".

Now, under that same premise, we have the case with the multiple drivers. If the drivers in the household are related (mom-father-son-daughter) insurance companies require that they be listed in the policy for liability reasons. Again, statistics dictate this practice. Now, you might not drive your mother's car since you have your own motorcycle, and I have no reason to doubt that you are telling the truth, however, statistics show that Junior is veeeery likely to take mommy's car for a spin and crash it into a pole. Or the neighbor's car. Or the neighbor's house (you'd be surprised at the stories you come across...)

The reason for requiring either proof of a difference residence or alternate insurance, is to protect the company. Liability follows the vehicle. If my Nissan Maxima mows 3 cars in my neighborhood, my insurance company is going to pay for it. Regardless of who drives the vehicle. Now, for example, my mother is listed on my policy because she is not driving at the moment but still holds a valid driver's license. I choose to list her as a driver because I want her to be covered in the event of an emergency and she needs to operate my car. If she was not listed as a driver, and happened to get in an accident while operating my vehicle the insurance company would backtrack the and add her on as per the date of the accident and the charge me with a surcharge for listing an additional driver with an accident at fault.
As mentioned before, there is a third option. You can exclude a driver from the policy. What happens at that point: Junior does not have the right to drive mommy's car. Ever. If Junior takes mom car for a spin and gets in accident, mom is SOL as the company will pay absolutely nothing. Now, that may be a good route in your case PMQ, but again, statistically, Junior is going to take the car for a spin at one point in time or another.

That's why the requirement. If Junior doesn't live in the house or has his own car and insurance policy, then STATISTICALLY he is much less likely to crash mommy's car.

[PoorManQ45]

I understand Dave's argument why should you have to be on your mother's policy if you don't intend to ever drive her car. It's a nice thought but impractical if you think about it. Im no insurance agent but I recognize that if that were allowed, it would create a monster loophole for every lousy driver to dodge premium increases by sneaking anonymously onto someone else's policy.

What do you mean sneaking on to a policy?

You're not listed on the policy, you get minimum coverage and only in certain situations. It's not like you could turn around and drive your own car under another person's insurance.

that's another thing that doesn't make sense. Vehicles and people have to be insured. They are requiring a person alone to be insured simply because a vehicle is insured in the household where they reside.

This whole thing has me curious if you could be charged, and convicted, of fraud if you didn't claim everyone in the household that is a legal driver. Hmm...

I really don't understand where this added "risk" is coming from. It's simple. You're not on the policy? You're not covered, and neither is the vehicle while your driving it!

This seems like the whole issue that we talked about awhile ago about credit history in regards to risk assessment. They say it matters, but haven't proved it.

Yes some insurance policies address "occasional non-listed drivers' and cover them for certain scenarios, but it;s not universal coverage for anyone that drives the car. That kinda policy costs a lot more money.

So, if that is the case, why does the mere fact that you live with someone force you to put them on your policy?

It seems that the only way around this is to either a: sign an exclusion(if they even offer this) waiver that eliminates all coverage, even the "occasional non-listed driver" coverage, or b: change companies and lie to them.

[PoorManQ45]

That's why the requirement. If Junior doesn't live in the house or has his own car and insurance policy, then STATISTICALLY he is much less likely to crash mommy's car.

One glaring flaw in the statistics. If I do not live at home and only have a motorcycle. It rains. I borrow mom's car. Per what you just said, the vehicle is still covered. That makes NO sense.

Vehicles alone should not have coverage. Vehicles and people can have coverage together. The only variation should be comprehensive in the case of vandalism and other none "accident" related damage.

Also, I am highly confused. If she dumps this company, I believe it's progressive, and goes to another company won't the two talk to each other?

IIRC I was doing something at one point with checking in to insurance. While getting quotes I typed in my mother's home address. it automatically pulled up all the vehicles AND people that were registered at that address. Crazy!!!

[seyath]

That's why the requirement. If Junior doesn't live in the house or has his own car and insurance policy, then STATISTICALLY he is much less likely to crash mommy's car.

One glaring flaw in the statistics. If I do not live at home and only have a motorcycle. It rains. I borrow mom's car. Per what you just said, the vehicle is still covered. That makes NO sense.

Vehicles alone should not have coverage. Vehicles and people can have coverage together. The only variation should be comprehensive in the case of vandalism and other none "accident" related damage.

The statistic being that if a you have a license and you live on your own, you are more than likely to have your own insurance. Yes, there are cases where your scenario would come into play. Then in order for you to be covered in case of that accident you would either have to be added on your mother policy as of the date of the accident, or you would be paying for that out of pocket.

Vehicles and people both have coverage. Liability follows the vehicle, as it is the money that you would pay to others in case of an accident. PIP (Personal Injury Protection) follows the driver.

[Bubba1]

I understand Dave's argument why should you have to be on your mother's policy if you don't intend to ever drive her car. It's a nice thought but impractical if you think about it. Im no insurance agent but I recognize that if that were allowed, it would create a monster loophole for every lousy driver to dodge premium increases by sneaking anonymously onto someone else's policy.

What do you mean sneaking on to a policy?

You're not listed on the policy, you get minimum coverage and only in certain situations. It's not like you could turn around and drive your own car under another person's insurance.

that's another thing that doesn't make sense. Vehicles and people have to be insured. They are requiring a person alone to be insured simply because a vehicle is insured in the household where they reside.

This whole thing has me curious if you could be charged, and convicted, of fraud if you didn't claim everyone in the household that is a legal driver. Hmm...

I really don't understand where this added "risk" is coming from. It's simple. You're not on the policy? You're not covered, and neither is the vehicle while your driving it!

This seems like the whole issue that we talked about awhile ago about credit history in regards to risk assessment. They say it matters, but haven't proved it.

Yes some insurance policies address "occasional non-listed drivers' and cover them for certain scenarios, but it;s not universal coverage for anyone that drives the car. That kinda policy costs a lot more money.

So, if that is the case, why does the mere fact that you live with someone force you to put them on your policy?

It seems that the only way around this is to either a: sign an exclusion(if they even offer this) waiver that eliminates all coverage, even the "occasional non-listed driver" coverage, or b: change companies and lie to them.

I think Seyath answered some of your points in the post above. There is always risk if you decide to lie to an insurance company to save a few dollars on a premium. The last thing you'd want is to get caught when you really need them for a claim.

[PoorManQ45]

Seyath, please clarify something for me. You are saying that a vehicle alone can have insurance regardless of the driver?

[seyath]

Seyath, please clarify something for me. You are saying that a vehicle alone can have insurance regardless of the driver?

No, a vehicle needs to be insured with a driver. Here's the deal though.

John drives/insures vehicle A.
Mary drives/insures vehicle B.

Both cars have full coverage (Liability, Comprehensive and Collision)

If Mary gets in an accident while driving vehicle A, the damages to other people/cars/property is covered by the insurance of vehicle A. Mary's medical bills are covered by vehicle A also.
Now, if Mary gets into an accident while driving vehicle B, the damages to other people/cars/property is covered by the insurance of vehicle B. Mary's medical bills are covered by vehicle A still. That's because liability coverage follows the vehicle while PIP (Personal Injury Protection) follows the driver.

Which brings us back to the issue at hand. Since the Liability coverage follows the vehicle, the insurance company is liable regardless of who is driving at the time of the accident. Hence they want to list any driver who is likely to have immediate access to the vehicle (licensed family members who live in the same household).

Does that clear things up a bit?

[scotty-2-forty]

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

No. At least in Florida, if you OWN a vehicle with at least four wheels and are REGISTERING it, you MUST have Florida insurance - according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

I think "seyath" summed everything up nicely (attributing some of our own iterations to experience); also reaffirming that insurance laws vary state-to-state. Why not have mom bring these questions to the agent? Like I stated earlier, before abruptly cancelling the current policy, educate yourselves and call a few other agents/carriers to see what they require.

[Jesda]

http://dmvanswers.com/questions/3925/Do ... -household

Most car insurance companies will want to know all the licensed drivers who live in your home.

Why?

Because there's a reasonable possibility they may hop behind the wheel of your car(s). To an auto insurance carrier, insurance is all about measuring risk. It's difficult, for a carrier to accurately determine the risk involved with insuring you if they don't know who else may be driving your car.

Remember, in most situations, your auto insurance policy will cover whatever happens with your car, even if you're not driving it. So, let's say you have teenagers in your home who have their own car insurance coverage. Should they drive your car and cause an accident, this will likely be reflected on your insurance policy.
Auto Insurance Policy Exclusions
Now, you can ask your car insurance provider to exclude certain drivers living in your home from being listed on your policy.

If your insurer agrees to this, you better make sure those individuals never drive your car. If they do and get into an accident, your carrier will likely refuse to pay for the damages caused.

This is the general rule throughout the country. Anything else is an exception.


Florida has its laws configured as they are because the state is full of a-holes from NJ/NY, wacky immigrants, and elderly people who can't see past the hood of their Buick Lucerne. They all do a ton of cocaine, crash into each other, and drive into swamps. Its one of the most expensive states in the union to carry car insurance for this reason.

While Brien does live in Florida, the bulk of the discussion revolves around what the norm is for auto insurance. I would not use Florida law to be any example of how things work in the rest of the country. Its a wacky state full of wacky people.

[scotty-2-forty]

... Its a wacky state full of wacky people.

This coming from Jesda ...