Can Car Insurance Company Make Someone Pay....

[tcase]

Ok, here is the situation.
My son, about a week or two ago was in an accident.
luckily no one was injured.
The owner of the vehicle said everyone that drives this vehicle was insured under the insurance company. my son didnt have insurance, but was legally driving this vehicle.. he was on a back road ( gravel road ), slid off road and rolled the vehicle. It was reported, and filed with the local sheriff department. My son was 17 at the time of the accident, in lander wyoming. today he turns 18. The owner said he is fighting with the insurance company because he said they are trying to make my son pay for everything, and for the rental car fee's. being a father, and my son also agrees he should help pay for some of it... but I disagree with him paying for everything. we are suspecting about 4000 dollars total, without the rental fee's. I wanted to ask because, it just doesnt seem right since the vehicle was insured for anyone to drive it... Im thinking about having him contact legal aid, or a lawyer about it because whats the use of having insurance like that, if they are going to try to make someone pay for everything,,, I could understand maybe half of the damages or what not...but not everything,,, and then on top of that, they said they were going to wait till after he was 18 to sue him for the damages... Any help on this issue would be helpful...
Thank you
TC

 

[INSUREGEEK]

I know this is confusing.

Did the car's owner have collision coverage? It almost sounds like maybe they didn't have full coverage and the owner wants your son to pay. Just a thought I had.

It's hard to know for sure what's happening without having access to the actual policy wording. I can tell you this - of course the insurance company wants to get their money back! The accident was your son's fault. If he had insurance of his own, his insurance would be contributing to the cost of the claim. Since it appears he does not, they may or may not pursue a legal action against him.

What good is the insurance if it wants an at-fault party to pay for damages? Well, that's the way most auto policies work. The owner's policy did what it was intended to do.....protect the owner and his assets.

 

[djs]

In general terms, the person responsible for the accident is responsible to pay for the accident. This varies a little bit by state, but for you to say he should pay half would imply that he is only 50% at fault for the accident.

Your insurance would cover your liability portion of the accident. In this case, your property damage coverage on your policy (if your son had insurance) would cover the other drivers car up to the policy limits, for what your son is responsible to pay.

What usually gets lost in these conversations is the fact that having insurance doesn't change who is responsible to pay, it only changes who actually pays. In this case, even if your son had insurance, your son would be 'responsible' to pay for the damages, but that payment would be made by your son's insurance coverage.

If the other party has full coverage, their insurance company will pay to have the damage fixed, then usually sends the bill to your insurance company for reimbursement (called subrogation). This happens behind the scene for most insureds. In this case, without insurance, they will send the bill to your son for reimbursement.

This is why he should have been insured, especially as a new driver.

Dan

 

[tcase]

Well,,, actually you both pretty much answered what I wanted,,, but, I dont see a reason to make all these monthly payments if some of that doesnt got toward some repairs to my vehicle,,, and thats what I was thinking,,,, would be better off to ditch car insurance, and just save that money back in a bank to pay for things,,,, but, thank you both anyhow,,,,

 

[djs]

Well, if you buy coverage for your car, then it does go towards fixing your car.
In most states, its not legal to drive without some form of financial responsibility filing, usually accomplished with insurance.

Like you said though, its lucky nobody got hurt, or this could have come out much different.

Dan

 

[ToddC]

Your son is responsible for returning the vehicle in the same condition, less reasonable wear/tear. So he's reasonable for this damage. If the _owner_ of the vehicle wanted to pursue your son for his loss he could. However, his insurance company cannot... as long as they'd consider your son an insured under their policy. If he was a permissive user then most likely he'd be an insured.

Ask the other person's carrier if they feel your son is legally liable for the damage to the vehicle. If yes, ask them if your son meets the definition of an insured under their policy. If yes then tell then your son is filing a liability claim for the damage to the vehicle and they should defend him and pay for the damage (to themselves). Let then know if they don't drop this matter that your son will pursue a Bad Faith claim. If they won't drop the issue, file a complaint with your states Dept of Insurance and see if you can find an attorney to take a Bad Faith claim.

But here is the thing... you say the owner of the vehicle is "fighting" with his carrier. Why? If he has collision coverage then they should just be paying for the loss. So something is wrong here. Has anyone actually told your son he needs to pay anything?

 

[rhyswoodward]

I think Toddc is right in this case...

 

[djs]

Ahhh, I think we are reading the OP's story differently. I think you read it as I initially did, but it didn't make sense to me.

What I think the story really is, there are 2 cars involved (not 1 as the story implies). the son, driving his or dad's car, had no insurance. The other car, driven by another party, does.

Dad is simply thinking since there is insurance on the other car, the insurance company should pay the loss and that is the end of it. He is missing the point that insurance companies go after the responsible party, or the responsible parties insurance company.

If you realize this, then the parts of the story start to make sense.

Dan

 

[ToddC]

Ahhh, I think we are reading the OP's story differently. I think you read it as I initially did, but it didn't make sense to me.

What I think the story really is, there are 2 cars involved (not 1 as the story implies). the son, driving his or dad's car, had no insurance. The other car, driven by another party, does.

Dad is simply thinking since there is insurance on the other car, the insurance company should pay the loss and that is the end of it. He is missing the point that insurance companies go after the responsible party, or the responsible parties insurance company.

If you realize this, then the parts of the story start to make sense.

I think there was one vehicle involved but don't know that it matters either way (other then another vehicle only serves to make this confusing). As I understand it, John Smith owns the vehicle the OP's son was driving. Smith went to his carrier to have his truck repaired. Smith's carrier is now going after the OP's son to recover what they spent to pay for the damage to Smith's truck. The only confusing part to me is why the OP mentions that Smith's carrier is giving him a hard time. Either they paid or they did not.

If what I mentioned above is correct then I don't see that Smith's carrier can seek payment from the OPs son. Yes, the OP's son is responsible for the damage to Smith's truck. So Smith himself could collect. But the OP's son should be an "insured" under Smith's policy. So he gets liability coverage. This means Smith's carrier cannot go after the OPs son for the damage as they would also need to defend the OP's son against this under that same policy.

 

[INSUREGEEK]

Even so, we're not talking about defending a liability claim where it behooves the carrier to include the driver as an insured to avoid conflict of interest in the eyes of a court and/or jury. That's really why a permissive user is "an insured" on the liability side.

We're talking about a collision claim (I think) where the carrier wants to go after the driver that caused the accident. So driver, where's YOUR insurance? Got none? Well, we'll have to think about how much blood we can suck from a turnip.

Show me the "who is an insured" section of a collision coverage form. I don't think there is one. It's an coverage added to the PAP form.....but the PAP form references only liability coverage. IIRC.