Looking for a odd ball insurance policy (auto)

My best guess is that the reason cars are insured rather than drivers is for what happens when someone who does not have insurance drives said car and gets into an accident. There is no coverage.

While you may be smart enough to not let people like that drive your car, i'm betting that 90% of drivers do not understand how any insurance works and many would end up not being insured. Requiring cars to carry liability protects others in case car gets into an accident regardless who drives the car and it is fairly easily enforceable .

Trying to force drivers to carry insurance is way harder. What happens if I do not own a car? Can't drive anything at all? Or carry insurance anyway?

EDIT: With multiple cars you get multi-car discounts. This is a basic acknowledgement that you cannot drive all at the same time.

Also, the risk calculation is based on the type of the car.
 
James331 said:
WA

and it's not that they don't require insurance (which is not constitutional BTW), it's that they don't put their nose into my business to make sure vehicles which are not even be on a public road have insurance on them, which is none of their damn business.
Click to expand...
1) How is it unconstitutional to require evidence of financial responsibility to drive a vehicle on public roads?
2) The system is set up so that you have to have license plates, with a current regi$tration, on your vehicle in order to drive it on public roads. If you don't register it, then I don't see why it needs to be insured.
 
MassPilot said:
If they drive into Massachusetts without liability insurance they are breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Who pays when there is an accident and neither party has insurance?
 
genna said:
My best guess is that the reason cars are insured rather than drivers is for what happens when someone who does not have insurance drives said car and gets into an accident. There is no coverage.

While you may be smart enough to not let people like that drive your car, i'm betting that 90% of drivers do not understand how any insurance works and many would end up not being insured. Requiring cars to carry liability protects others in case car gets into an accident regardless who drives the car and it is fairly easily enforceable .

Trying to force drivers to carry insurance is way harder. What happens if I do not own a car? Can't drive anything at all? Or carry insurance anyway?

EDIT: With multiple cars you get multi-car discounts. This is a basic acknowledgement that you cannot drive all at the same time.

Also, the risk calculation is based on the type of the car.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
paflyer said:
1) How is it unconstitutional to require evidence of financial responsibility to drive a vehicle on public roads?
2) The system is set up so that you have to have license plates, with a current regi$tration, on your vehicle in order to drive it on public roads. If you don't register it, then I don't see why it needs to be insured.
Click to expand...

1
It's like the supreme courts broccoli quote.
Insurance, despite some killer marketing, is a PRODUCT

It's a public road

If you are worried about someone hurting you or your property, YOU get insurance, lots of this stems from the false idea that people have a right to a "fair" life, it's freedom, you're free to make good choices and bad choices, sometimes a good choice for you isn't a good choice for someone else.

2
Because registration is a by the year (or two) tax, so I buy two years worth of tags for my cars, now that said I don't drive my sports cars or bikes in the winter, hence I don't want to pay for insurance for the time the vehicles are not on the road, this has zero to do with the tags I bought and paid for and is of zero business of the government.
 
genna said:
My best guess is that the reason cars are insured rather than drivers is for what happens when someone who does not have insurance drives said car and gets into an accident. There is no coverage.

While you may be smart enough to not let people like that drive your car, i'm betting that 90% of drivers do not understand how any insurance works and many would end up not being insured. Requiring cars to carry liability protects others in case car gets into an accident regardless who drives the car and it is fairly easily enforceable .

Trying to force drivers to carry insurance is way harder. What happens if I do not own a car? Can't drive anything at all? Or carry insurance anyway?

EDIT: With multiple cars you get multi-car discounts. This is a basic acknowledgement that you cannot drive all at the same time.

Also, the risk calculation is based on the type of the car.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really hold water

If some guy with 2 DWIs, 10 tickets, who my insurance company would never have insured, jumps into MY car and smashes into something, you really think MY insurance is going to pay out?

Nope
 
James331 said:
This doesn't really hold water

If some guy with 2 DWIs, 10 tickets, who my insurance company would never have insured, jumps into MY car and smashes into something, you really think MY insurance is going to pay out?

Nope
Click to expand...

Yes, it will. Certainly in my state. I have gone through that. Uninsured motorist policy under liability insurance. It's a required policy in MD. I cannot speak on other states. Unless the driver is specifically excluded from coverage(to save money you may do that to your co-habitats with bad records), the accident will be covered. They may jack up the price later, but that's another story.

EDIT: Actually, i don't even think it's under Uninsured Motorist.. It's just plain liability i think. Either way, your car's liability(and collision) insurance will cover the accident
 
James331 said:
1
It's like the supreme courts broccoli quote.
Insurance, despite some killer marketing, is a PRODUCT

It's a public road

If you are worried about someone hurting you or your property, YOU get insurance, lots of this stems from the false idea that people have a right to a "fair" life, it's freedom, you're free to make good choices and bad choices, sometimes a good choice for you isn't a good choice for someone else.

2
Because registration is a by the year (or two) tax, so I buy two years worth of tags for my cars, now that said I don't drive my sports cars or bikes in the winter, hence I don't want to pay for insurance for the time the vehicles are not on the road, this has zero to do with the tags I bought and paid for and is of zero business of the government.
Click to expand...

1) Your insurance protects me. Some states have alternate means of proving that you have sufficient wealth in lieu of insurance.
2) Insurance companies usually have some reduced premium option for vehicles not in use, and/or low use. Have you called your agent?

 
paflyer said:
1) Your insurance protects me. Some states have alternate means of proving that you have sufficient wealth in lieu of insurance.
2) Insurance companies usually have some reduced premium option for vehicles not in use, and/or low use. Have you called your agent?
Click to expand...

But that's limited way of viewing it, and not how nature works, my responsibility isn't to you, it's to me, if I'm scared I'll buy insurance, and should others, it's all back asswards

Yes, but I'm not looking for reduced, I'm looking of eliminated, the policy insures me, I will not buy multiple polices and be scammed, hence why I asked about the multiple open car policy, or a referral for a company that has that free to change policy.
 
James331 said:
But that's limited way of viewing it, and not how nature works, my responsibility isn't to you, it's to me, if I'm scared I'll buy insurance, and should others, it's all back asswards

Yes, but I'm not looking for reduced, I'm looking of eliminated, the policy insures me, I will not buy multiple polices and be scammed, hence why I asked about the multiple open car policy, or a referral for a company that has that free to change policy.
Click to expand...
Why do you need multiple policies? Maybe I'm missing something. I have three cars, two houses, and an umbrella all with the same company. The cars are all on the same policy.
 
paflyer said:
Why do you need multiple policies? Maybe I'm missing something. I have three cars, two houses, and an umbrella all with the same company. The cars are all on the same policy.
Click to expand...

Basically I don't want to pay to insure multiple cars on a policy, just one driver.
 
James331 said:
Basically I don't want to pay to insure multiple cars on a policy, just one driver.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that's just the way it works. If you had multiple homes would you want one homeowner's policy that covers anything you own?

Don't you have an agent?
 
paflyer said:
Well, I guess that's just the way it works. If you had multiple homes would you want one homeowner's policy that covers anything you own?

Don't you have an agent?
Click to expand...

But that's not the case, they are not insuring the cars, they are insuring me as the driver, and there is only one me.

Yeah I have a agent, but anything beyond standard issue stuff seems to be beyond most agents.
 
genna said:
My best guess is that the reason cars are insured rather than drivers is for what happens when someone who does not have insurance drives said car and gets into an accident. There is no coverage.

While you may be smart enough to not let people like that drive your car, i'm betting that 90% of drivers do not understand how any insurance works and many would end up not being insured. Requiring cars to carry liability protects others in case car gets into an accident regardless who drives the car and it is fairly easily enforceable .

Trying to force drivers to carry insurance is way harder. What happens if I do not own a car? Can't drive anything at all? Or carry insurance anyway?

EDIT: With multiple cars you get multi-car discounts. This is a basic acknowledgement that you cannot drive all at the same time.

Also, the risk calculation is based on the type of the car.
Click to expand...

These are not liability claims. These are collision, comprehensive, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims.

If I loan out my car, and the driver carries liability insurance on their own vehicle, by insurance will subrogate against his or hers unless it's the same underwriter.

The piddly multi-car discount doesn't even come close to covering what I pay to insure three vehicles not being driven while two are. If you've seen a multi-car discount which does, let me know.

paflyer said:
1) How is it unconstitutional to require evidence of financial responsibility to drive a vehicle on public roads?
2) The system is set up so that you have to have license plates, with a current regi$tration, on your vehicle in order to drive it on public roads. If you don't register it, then I don't see why it needs to be insured.
Click to expand...

That be fine if I could turn registration on and off as quickly and as often as insurance. It's 2017. Stickers on plates are stupid, there isn't a law enforcement agency that doesn't run the plates directly from an in-car terminal and those few that don't have MDT gear still run them via the dispatcher. It was that way back when I was dispatching in the early 90s as a Sheriff's department member.

genna said:
Yes, it will. Certainly in my state. I have gone through that. Uninsured motorist policy under liability insurance. It's a required policy in MD. I cannot speak on other states. Unless the driver is specifically excluded from coverage(to save money you may do that to your co-habitats with bad records), the accident will be covered. They may jack up the price later, but that's another story.

EDIT: Actually, i don't even think it's under Uninsured Motorist.. It's just plain liability i think. Either way, your car's liability(and collision) insurance will cover the accident
Click to expand...

In CO Uninsured and Underinsured is a separate line item. It's quite common for the clueless to carry neither and eat the costs in accidents with said motorists.

paflyer said:

1) Your insurance protects me. Some states have alternate means of proving that you have sufficient wealth in lieu of insurance.
2) Insurance companies usually have some reduced premium option for vehicles not in use, and/or low use. Have you called your agent?

Click to expand...

You don't need protection from my parked vehicles, and nobody should use an agent -- get a good broker.

James331 said:
Yeah I have a agent, but anything beyond standard issue stuff seems to be beyond most agents.
Click to expand...

Every time I ask an agent a question they say they need to go ask corporate. Agents are not empowered to do what they once did.
 
denverpilot said:
These are not liability claims. These are collision, comprehensive, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims.

If I loan out my car, and the driver carries liability insurance on their own vehicle, by insurance will subrogate against his or hers unless it's the same underwriter.

The piddly multi-car discount doesn't even come close to covering what I pay to insure three vehicles not being driven while two are. If you've seen a multi-car discount which does, let me know.



That be fine if I could turn registration on and off as quickly and as often as insurance. It's 2017. Stickers on plates are stupid, there isn't a law enforcement agency that doesn't run the plates directly from an in-car terminal and those few that don't have MDT gear still run them via the dispatcher. It was that way back when I was dispatching in the early 90s as a Sheriff's department member.



In CO Uninsured and Underinsured is a separate line item. It's quite common for the clueless to carry neither and eat the costs in accidents with said motorists.



You don't need protection from my parked vehicles, and nobody should use an agent -- get a good broker.



Every time I ask an agent a question they say they need to go ask corporate. Agents are not empowered to do what they once did.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I meant broker. Also, PA just did away with the idiotic plate stickers (I threw it out when it came in the mail the first year living in the state; it was in a little pocket in the back of the envelope- no one tells you these things)
 
denverpilot said:
In CO Uninsured and Underinsured is a separate line item. It's quite common for the clueless to carry neither and eat the costs in accidents with said motorists.
Click to expand...

In Colorado, the standard Uninsured/Underinsured line item only covers bodily injury to you (the policy owner) in the case the other driver's insurance isn't enough to cover your medical bills. A lot of people think it covers damage to their car if they get hit by an uninsured driver -- that would be covered by your collision coverage. If you don't have collision, you can buy separate Uninsured-Property (it's cheap, I pay $9/year for it for a 2003 car), which will cover damage to your car caused by an uninsured driver. For some reason, most agents don't seem to tell you about UI-property (probably because it is so cheap).
 
denverpilot said:
My smart assed answer to this, of course, was to tell them their coverage is denied and fix the problem, but she had no answer for that, of course... they'd rather get some money than no money out of a broke ass household.
Click to expand...

The reason is that the courts make it really hard to do so. When that deadbeat hits a third party, the courts will bend over backwards to find coverage for that innocent third party.
 
MassPilot said:
If they drive into Massachusetts without liability insurance they are breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that works in Massachusetts, but you can't write a ticket in Missouri for lack of insurance if the vehicle is registered in another state. Same would go for window tint, front plate requirements, etc.
 
Flyingfanatic said:
Not sure how that works in Massachusetts, but you can't write a ticket in Missouri for lack of insurance if the vehicle is registered in another state. Same would go for window tint, front plate requirements, etc.
Click to expand...
It's a misdemeanor crime to drive in this state without liability insurance regardless of where the car is registered. If someone from New Hampshire without insurance crosses the border into Massachusetts and is pulled over or involved in an accident they will probably end up with a court summons.
 
ColoPilot said:
In Colorado, the standard Uninsured/Underinsured line item only covers bodily injury to you (the policy owner) in the case the other driver's insurance isn't enough to cover your medical bills. A lot of people think it covers damage to their car if they get hit by an uninsured driver -- that would be covered by your collision coverage. If you don't have collision, you can buy separate Uninsured-Property (it's cheap, I pay $9/year for it for a 2003 car), which will cover damage to your car caused by an uninsured driver. For some reason, most agents don't seem to tell you about UI-property (probably because it is so cheap).
Click to expand...
Read the policy- make sure there are no "auto" exclusions.
 
ColoPilot said:
In Colorado, the standard Uninsured/Underinsured line item only covers bodily injury to you (the policy owner) in the case the other driver's insurance isn't enough to cover your medical bills. A lot of people think it covers damage to their car if they get hit by an uninsured driver -- that would be covered by your collision coverage. If you don't have collision, you can buy separate Uninsured-Property (it's cheap, I pay $9/year for it for a 2003 car), which will cover damage to your car caused by an uninsured driver. For some reason, most agents don't seem to tell you about UI-property (probably because it is so cheap).
Click to expand...

Yeah I forgot about that. I had to poke at my agent to even get them to notice it existed.
 
PPC1052 said:
The reason is that the courts make it really hard to do so. When that deadbeat hits a third party, the courts will bend over backwards to find coverage for that innocent third party.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they don't do much as "find coverage" but strongarm the insurer who wasn't providing coverage at all for that scenario to settle to avoid a lengthy trial.

Another reason to continue to believe that "that book that says we should retain 90% of judges at elections" is BS. Toss judges. Regularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top