QUESTION
If an insured owner let her son drive while she was in the car, and he got in an accident, would she be liable?
Asked on Jan 01st, 2013 on Automobile Accidents - California
More details to this question:
A friend of mine's truck was hit by a car leaving a parking space. The other driver was at fault. The insured owner allowed her son to drive her car but she was a passenger in the car at the time of the accident. Her insurance company denied his claim stating her son is an excluded driver. Since she was in the car at the time of the accident, would this not make her insurance company liable for damages?
11 ANSWERS
The insurance policy probably states that it will not pay under any circumstances if a "specifically" excluded driver is driving. However, depending on the amount of damage, you could take them both to small claims court and get a settlement for the damages caused against them personally.
Answered on Jan 13th, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Personal Injury Attorney serving Charlotte, NC
at
Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A.
Update Your Profile
Yes. The owner is liable for a person she lets drive her insured car.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2013 at 9:45 PM
She would be liable if she negligently entrusted the vehicle to her son because he did not have a license, was intoxicated, unqualified to drive, etc. Otherwise, an owner is not automatically liable for the negligence of a permissive user.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2013 at 9:15 PM
Litigation Attorney serving San Antonio, TX
at
Graves Law Firm
Update Your Profile
Unfortunately, no. If an excluded driver was operating the vehicle, the insurer doesn't have to cover the loss. The mother agreed with her insurance carrier that she was buying insurance that would not cover damage caused by operation of the car by the excluded driver. The mother might still be personally liable if the circumstances are right, but you can pretty much forget insurance coverage. Hope your friend had collision or uninsured property coverage.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Sue both the driver and the owner of the vehicle. Even if the insurance company will not cover the driver, you may force him to pay out of his own pocket. Just because an insurance company will not provide coverage, does not mean that person is not liable. It just means that any judgments or settlements will come out of their own pocket as opposed to from an insurance company.
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Ronald A. Steinberg
Certainly. That's why she has insurance.
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:18 PM
Bankruptcy Attorney serving Madison, WI
at
Richard B. Jacobson & Associates, LLC
Update Your Profile
It might. But it would take a lawsuit to make that happen.
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Criminal Defense Attorney serving Anderson, SC
at
The David F. Stoddard Law Firm
Update Your Profile
In S.C., anyone driving with the owner's permission is covered by the insurance. Even if insurance doesn't cover it, the mother would likely be liable under a doctrine known as the family purpose doctrine. I question the insurer's denial of this claim.
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:08 PM
If the owner's son was excluded from coverage under the policy, her insurance carrier has no obligation to cover the damage. In order for that to happen, she would have had to pay for covering her son (and her agent would have gotten himself a new BMW with his share of the premuim).
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:07 PM
Insurance Defense Litigation Attorney serving Auburn, CA
at
Graves Law Offices
Update Your Profile
Not if he is a specifically excluded driver. Permissive users are covered as long as they are not specifically excluded and in that case permission to use is of no moment because they are already excluded. Especially in the instance where the driver providing the permission knows that the son is excluded.
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:05 PM
Insurance Law Attorney serving Gainesville, FL
at
Steven Kalishman, P.A. Law Offices
Update Your Profile
If her son really is an excluded driver, the insurance company does not have to pay the claim. But the owner is still liable.
Answered on Jan 05th, 2013 at 8:05 PM