classic car insurance and teenage drivers, what did you do?

I have about 6 month to a year before I need to care.
you guys that have teenagers that wanted to drive your classic cars, how did you handle insurance?

I know haggerty won't insure the car driven by someone under 25.
did you just carry a second policy? or is that even allowed?
or did you just not let your kid drive it?

Having a second policy sounds like it's a whole new can of worms if it's even allowed. Plus if they're driving when there's an accident you'd loose all benefits of the classic insurance and be fighting to get proper $$$$$ out of a regular company.

Yes, that's allowed. You'll end up with less than ideal coverage for the car itself, but it's better than nothing. The collector car insurer would deny coverage (both collision and liability) if you allowed an underage driver to drive the vehicle and there was an accident, even if it was the other person's fault. The regular insurer would need a copy of the coverage denial letter the collector car insurer would send to you and the underage driver. Once they had that, they'd handle your claim like normal. That process can take a bit, so it may inconvenience you, but worse, it may add to the inconvenience of the other driver if your driver was at fault.



That's the best idea/least amount of hassle.

yeah, that sounds like a pain, but I can't see not driving it either.
I mean I know when I was a kid these were just used cars, but I don't think I would have been as into them if I couldn't have driven one.
not talking ferris beulers day off type car.

Right, when you were a kid, they were just used cars. That's not the case anymore. Only you know what's best for your situation. If you want the kids to drive, get a regular policy and roll the dice.

If a teenaged driver is driving their parents car without proper insurance, and has an accident injuring something or worse someone (including a passenger). The injured party should, and probably will, go after the parents for everything they can.

More risk than many insurance companies care to cover.

I could see having a standard policy, then the parents have the risk of not getting a whole reimbursement for their damaged car. But at least they would be covered for liability.

No kids here but if I did.... no no no. Best for there safety, the cars safety.

I think what would be worse is teaching a youngster with a modern car with RnP steering and then trying to get them used to our old steering boxes, brakes, ect.

Maybe after a few years of driving under there belt.

Standard auto insurers all cover teenage drivers. It's the collector companies that do not.

The safety thing is the main reason I am thinking against it.
seeing the jeep that hit the vette and 57 belair makes me want to re-think driving it myself. let alone a kid driving it.
jeep guy was high and just plowed through them both. walked away fine since it was a new jeep 4dr.
passenger of the 57 died and the driver is seriously injured. no fault of their own.
vette might be repairable, since it took a glancing blow.

My policy stated a minimum age of drivers at 25 years old.

I just have regular insurance on my 51, my 17 yo drives it.

Your collector policy, or your regular auto policy?

Interesting...my son has been on my collector policy since I got it in 2014...he was 17 then. My daughter didn't want to be on it.

who do you use?
haggerty specifically states over 25 or they don't insure.

Which company, and did they ask for his birthday? Not shocking if there’s a company out there that does things differently than the rest.

I have been with Hagerty and Grundy and one other the na me escapes me right now. They all said 25 and up drivers

The idea of getting collector car insurance is to get a better price because they can limit their exposure to claims. The odds are much better for people under 25 to be involved in an accident, why would you still expect to get a discounted rate when you add a high risk driver to your collector car insurance?

Your regular insurance may cover your under 25 driver on their collector car insurance, but I would expect a much higher premium, and I would expect a lot of hassle should a claim need to be made.

Usually when there's a teenage driver with normal insurance coverage your premium goes up. It's a higher risk so the insurance company is going to want more.

Hagerty may have changed, check your policy. I noticed the daily driver portion used to say something about vehicle needs to be newer than 10 years for a daily driver. Now it just says something like reliable vehicle. I also asked Hagerty somewhere if a minor can drive your car and they said they want younger people in the hobby and the 25 year old restriction was lifted. I did a search for "25" in the policy after a quick skim and didn't see it in there. It used to be no driver under 25, but could have your child drive it if you were in the car with them. Maybe it's changed to any licensed driver?

Hagerty is notorious for telling people over the phone what they want to hear, even when it contradicts the policy contract. It's entirely possible that the policy has changed, you are correct. I would just be hesitant to take their word for it vs. having it pointed out to me in the policy. You went further than most consumers do by reading the policy.

I have Condon Skelly.

I learned how to drive in this junk, wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. When I drove a rnp car for the first time, it was a breeze because I was so used to old school stuff. I really think it makes me better to have the old car experience since it requires more attention and that’s exactly opposite of the way 99.44% of mfers drive.

thats the answer right there.. most if not all want you to be 25 years old for classic/collector car insurance.. you either use regular insurance or don't allow them to drive it.. they will get over it.

we have jc taylor... a few years ago my son ,22 at the time, finally showed some interest in muscle - wanted to take out the superbird, but it had the 25 year old stipulation... i called them to cancel all the insurance's (22 cars) the agent asked me why, n i mentioned the 25year old clause.... he said it would waived... n i said but its a rule, n his response was ... rules are made to be broken - i asked for an email confirmation, n within mins i had an email from the insurer waiving the clause...

I reached out to them for a quote.
they said you have to have 5 years driving experience to be covered. and if you have under 10 years it required a waiver.

don't have 22 cars with hagerty so doubt asking will pull any weight, but it doesn't hurt.

I remember reading something about daily driver being 10 years or newer and drivers have to be 25 years old. I can not find any old policies from Hagerty. I also do not see those in the most recent policy. If anyone has Hagerty and can look for it in the policy, let me know what it says.

It seems like a lot of insurance policies are very vague lately in their wording. I had a hard time trying to find something on hagerty and somewhere else.

They're not, but if they were, that's to the advantage of the consumer. Any ambiguity in policy language must be interpreted in favor of the insured. Either the insurer will do so voluntarily, or the Department of Insurance will make them do so.



What do you mean?

so ' vague' favors the insured?? maybe, but the insurance co. has lots of $$$, if they don't like the 1st outcome, they will appeal, and then appeal again and again .... i hope u have deep pockets, and lots of time

That's discouraging. His name has appeared among the listed drivers on the car since I bought it in 2014, at which time he was 17. And they knew that...we discussed it quite clearly. Crazy.

There's no maybe. Vague/ambiguous language must be interpreted in favor of the insured. This is true in all 50 states + D.C. If the policy language is vague/ambiguous, the smart adjuster will just interpret in favor of the insured and save the company time and money. The dumb adjuster will interpret in favor of the company, in which case all the insured has to do is file a complaint with the Department of Insurance, who will then force the insurance company to interpret in favor of the insured. It doesn't cost a dime for a consumer to file a DOI complaint. It's not court, it's not a lawsuit, there's no hearing, there's no appealing. The consumer files a written complaint. The DOI notifies the insurance company, who has 30 days to respond in writing. DOI then makes a decision, and you do what the DOI tells you to do. If the insurance company is lucky, they'll just be told what to do. If there's a pattern of such behavior, the DOI will hit them with huge fines, fines that more than offset any savings that may have occurred by not paying the claim in the first place.

tell that to the people in florida where the insurance co's will not cover the damage as it wasn't the 'cane that ruined your home , but the water... and why is that... cause of the vague/ambiguous language ...

Yes, the storm surge argument, is it flooding, or is it wind driven? That argument has been settled that storm surge is flooding, and anyone who lives in an area prone to flooding/storm surge should have flood insurance, which is only available from the federal government.



If someone lives in coastal FL and doesn't have flood insurance, or doesn't know the difference at this point, that's on them. It's not ambiguous. The NFIP defines it for them. Wind blows the roof off and water gets in your home? Homeowners insurance. Storm surge floods your home? Flood insurance. Both happen at the same time? Homeowners buys your roof, the insulation, etc. and flood insurance fixes the flood damage. It's a huge pain for the consumer, no doubt. It's a direct result of insurers saying they were no longer going to rebuild the same property multiple times due to flooding.

Also, mobile homes are personal property, not real property, so depending upon the state, a flooded mobile home is treated as a vehicle, not a house, and is covered the same way a flooded car would be covered.

Vague as in you used to be able to go to hagerty's website or a number of other companies and it was quick to find specific info on what was excluded and other info on the coverage. Now it's harder to find and not much there. Same with what comes in the mail for renwal. Hagerty still had a decent sized envelope of paper work at least.

Right, they did used to have a list on their website of vehicle types they would not insure. They've changed their stance over the last few years regarding cages and power adders, for example.

That was the 1st classic car insurance I had way back when. When I canceled and went with Grundy they stabbed me in the back. Low down actions.
They did so many others and were sued. I would not have anything insured with them now.
Low down snake in the grass place.