Any truth to what s posted below? I have never heard of anything like this. Posted on a local web board in Ravenna Ohio.

Do yourself a favor and take the time to read this as it will certainly apply to some of you out there. It pertains to an unfortunate experience relative to auto insurance.
In March I was rear- ended by a minor driving his mother’s minivan. He presented his mother’s insurance card to the police which was Allstate. Upon me filing a claim with Allstate, I was informed that the minor was not covered by his mother’s policy, but rather through his father’s policy at Progressive. His parents are apparently divorced as he lives with his mother. Upon filing a claim with Progressive, Progressive denied the claim. I was told the claim was denied because he does not reside with his father. I asked the Claims Rep if the minor was listed on his father’s policy. He said, “yes.”I then asked whether the father was current with his policy by making payment of premiums in good faith. Again, the Rep responded, “yes.” So how can the minor not be covered? This sounds like insurance fraud to me.
Bottom line, check to ensure you children that are driving are insured. It could cost you everything. Imagine this father thinking that he has liability coverage for his child, has paid for it, but does not.
Secondly, only do business with reputable companies. Apparently these carriers think that advertising ignorant commercials and stadium sponsorships are the means to running a business with integrity. There apparently is no integrity here as Corporate Greed once again prevails. And by the way Progressive, I will be replacing you for my specialty policies…

First, there are important details that are missing, which is not surprising.

Second, if you have someone listed on your policy as a resident relative, and they no longer live at your house, they are no longer a resident relative. Insurance is not meant to cover everyone in the family. It's meant to cover you, and the people who live with you. A temporary living situation such as a kid being at college is not a problem, but if someone moves out and goes to live elsewhere, the insurance needs to be updated. The kid should have been removed from dad's insurance and added to mom's insurance. Both parents goofed.

The person who is angry has reason to be angry, but he's directing it at the wrong people in this instance. The dad continuing to make payments is not relevant. Dad did something that voided coverage for his son (his fault), AND chose to keep paying and not tell his insurance company. How would the insurance company know dad was paying for something that wasn't going to be covered? He never told them the kid moved out or otherwise lived with his mother. Maybe the kid never lived with dad in the first place?.

Insurers don't just deny coverage on a whim. There's a lot that goes into the decision, and it goes several levels above the adjuster to get approved. Coverage only gets denied if it is clear-cut. I had a 2+ hour discussion this morning involving me, a supervisor who reports to me, another manager, my boss (a director), and another director. The entire call was about whether coverage should be afforded on a certain claim. One claim. 5 people, 2+ hours, talking about coverage on one claim. That's how most denials are done because denying coverage is a serious thing, and there is no margin for error. Incorrectly denying coverage is an example of acting in bad faith, and that comes with hefty fines and penalties attached.

I think consumers assume way too much. Long gone are the days where insurance companies will just blanket cover anything when they can get out of it because the grand times are way past.

I ask USAA tons of questions about my coverage in almost every area I can see me possibly having a claim over. They almost seem irritated I ask so much but I want to know what im covered for and what im not.

In this case the insured party could easily of asked before any claim came to be what the child was covered for by either company and what there rules and guidelines are. OR maybe they could of read there companies policy rules although some are confusing.

People need to there part in life and be informed as possible before trouble strikes. And stop playing the victim card.

Also, another DA complaining about advertising. So stupid.

I thought anyone borrowing your car is covered? Why does it matter where he lives?

I don't know why Allstate said that mom's policy didn't cover him, since he lives with her. It's possible she has him excluded from coverage. It's possible they won't cover him because he's been a resident relative of hers for X amount of time and she never added him to the policy. Could be something else too.

Dad's policy appears to have listed him as a household resident and he is not. That's a problem.



That is also not correct.

So just for my curiosity what if the people are divorced but have shared custody? Who should carry the insurance?

That's something that has to be looked into with the prospective insurance company or companies. Just need to ask them, or if there's an agent, ask the agent. They'll tell you how to go about doing it. And then I suspect it needs to be spelled out in the divorce decree as far as who is paying for it, but that wouldn't affect coverage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the person who's car was hit be able to go to his own insurer under his "uninsured motorist" coverage, get his car fixed, and let his insurance company fight it out with Allstate and Progressive? It was explained to me very forcefully in TX and CA that you'd BETTER have good uninsured motorist coverage due to the number of illegals...

That's a common misconception. There are 2 kinds of uninsured motorist coverage:

Uninsured (also underinsured) motorist BI - covers your injuries if you are injured by someone with no insurance, or with insufficient coverage to pay for your injuries in full. This is pretty straightforward in every state that offers UM/UIM coverage.

Uninsured motorist PD - covers your vehicle damages if your car is damaged by someone with no insurance. This varies significantly from state to state. In some states, it would also apply to an underinsured situation, but not in every state. In some states, you can only carry UMPD or Collision on a vehicle, not both. Ohio is one such state, and that's where this incident occurred. In other states, you can carry both coverages on the same vehicle. Also, in Ohio, UMPD only applies if the other driver is identified, and it is confirmed that they are uninsured. Some other states are like that, while other states provide more broad UMPD coverage, such as being hit-skipped by an unidentified driver.

Because this guy was in Ohio, and coverage was denied by both companies, he could use his UMPD coverage if he has it. If he carries Collision instead of UMPD, he can use his coverage regardless of whether or not the other driver was insured. If he doesn't carry either one, he's out of luck and on his own. He can sue mom and the kid directly, but good luck collecting. As far as his insurance company fighting it out, that's not going to get far at all in this situation because all Allstate and Progressive have to do is say "Here's the letter we sent to our insured advising them that coverage was not afforded for this loss," and that's the end of that.

Most people who explain things very forcefully generally don't know much.

Can you explain how this works? I always wonder when I loan a car.

If you give someone permissive use to drive your vehicle, they are most likely covered while driving your vehicle, but not always. You can specifically exclude a household resident from your policy and then give them permission to drive your car. If you do so, they are not covered. If anyone driving your car does anything that is excluded from coverage, they are not covered. There are other examples as well. I was responding to the assertion that "anyone borrowing your car is covered." Assuming in terms of absolutes is a great way for people like the one in Russ' story to end up in a bad situation.

Assuming mom gave the kid permissive use to drive her vehicle, there must be something else at play in order for Allstate to have denied coverage. That's what I meant in my first post about there being details missing. I don't know why they denied coverage, but unless there was gross incompetence involved, they must have a valid reason. The Progressive denial appears more clear cut, as in the son is listed on dad's policy but is not a resident relative and therefore should not have been, and add to it that the son was driving mom's car, not dad's car.

What I find confusing is that the kids is named on the policy, what difference does his residency status make? Or more importantly why would it matter?

I am guessing his parents never had him listed as a driver on their policies - they just assumed a minor would be covered - if the minor had been listed as licensed driver on the mothers policy or fathers policy there should be coverage. As usual an insurance company will deny the claim - in order for the chance that litagation would not be pursued - the key to this argument is if there is shared custody in the divorce agreement

The kid is named on dad's policy, but doesn't live with dad. I am certain that's the root of the problem with dad's insurance though I don't know the details of course. Why mom's company denied coverage, I'm truly not sure, though it almost certainly has something to do with the fact that he lives there and is not on the policy. Has to be something though. Like I said, they don't just deny coverage because they have nothing better to do.

Allstate used to mass deny home claims and they got slapped hard for it, as well they should have. Horribly unethical company back then. They don't do that anymore. They're still a poorly run company, but not for the same reasons.

As far as shared custody, etc., that doesn't really have any bearing on it. You have to have one address listed as your resident address.

^^^ Yup.
The basic concept obviously is to insure against risk of damage or loss.
The insurer's underwriter or actuaries need to be a part of charging a customer for insurance.
Whether or not a driver in a higher-risk bracket could be operating the vehicle, would have a bearing on risk assessment and the premium charged.
In the simplest terms, it's kind of a bet - if you've ever played poker (successfully), you know the deal.

so somewhat on a related note to the original topic.
if i or [riding with] a friend drive to an event, and one of us happens to suffer a medical emergency, and the other drives the [other's] car home and gets into a fender bender or worse, the insurance on our car[s] would not cover the incident because my friend or i are not on each other's policy as allowable drivers, although we gave permission [to each other] to drive the car home because of the unforeseen circumstance[s] ?

Permissive use is almost always covered. You can't give permissive use to someone who is specifically excluded from coverage, and you can't give permissive use to someone who is supposed to be on your policy but is not.

Also, don't loan your car to people. It's a terrible idea. We see claims involving unlisted drivers all of the time. An unlisted driver is someone who is not on your policy, but (generally speaking) had your permission to drive the car. Guess who is nearly always at fault when we get claims involving an unlisted driver? Why, the unlisted driver, of course.

thanks for clearing that up for me, but it made me think about another scenario.
if one owns several cars, and wants two of them to attend an event, or go to another location for whatever reason, would having a friend drive one of the vehicles constitute "lending" it to him ?

It would, yes, but if you let someone drive your car and it's on a classic car policy with agreed value, they will likely not be covered. Classic car insurance is cheap in part because it has a lot of restrictions/exclusions.

good to know !
my best friend has two cars, and most of the time, he likes to show them together at our yearly local festival.
in order to get them there, either his nephew or i go to his house and drive one to the festival, then he takes us back to our respective houses and we pick up our cars and return to the festival, parking together.
at the end of the event, we drive our car[s] back to our house[s] then return to pick up his other car and drive it back to his house where our daily driver was sitting, then go home from there.

If he has them on a collector policy, you or his nephew driving is almost certainly not covered.

But isn’t the CAR still covered if I let a friend drive my car and he wrecks?

Very likely not. Classic car policies are very restrictive. With most of them, coverage is only afforded when a listed driver is driving. That includes comp/collision and liability.

I wondered about that when I drove one of Mike's Six-Pack cars to a show while he drove his pink Hemi Cuda so he could win both classes I didn't ask about it because I was just excited to drive one of his restorations to a show.

Gus

is it possible to amend a policy to include who one could conceivably think of several others who may, at some point, be drivers of one's vehicle ?
if so, wouldn't there be a limit, say only one or two others ?

Not with a classic car policy, at least not that I am aware of. Like I said, it's cheap for several reasons, chief among them is the restrictions/limitations placed on coverage.

On our Hagerty policies i just listed everyone( family, wife Son-in-law, daughter) i would let drive them. Costs more but less worries.

If they let you, great. That's a positive thing, and it never hurts to ask. But always ask. It does hurt not to ask.

Ok I have full coverage am I covered by my insurance or theirs if I drive someone's else's car? If a friend drives my car is it covered by my insurance if they wreck? If not am I responsible for the damage they caused or are they?

Thanks Mike

"Full coverage" is not a real thing. It's a term that someone made up at some point and it gets parroted about, but it doesn't mean anything.

As far as which insurance would be primary in the situations you describe, that depends upon the state, and the language in each person's insurance policy. That's what will determine which policy is primary and which is excess. If both policies are determined to be primary or excess, then the damages are handled on a pro-rata basis between the 2 policies.