The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Motorcycle Accident - Progressive Screwing Me?
ED!
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Short Story: Is a vehicle (and its owner) still liable for damage if they aren't driving the vehicle (loaned it out to someone to get groceries for instance) in California?
Long Story:
So, I was an a motorcycle accident. An individual turned in front of me, not yielding the right of way. Police report and PROGRESSIVE agree. Heres "the problem" (according to PROGRESSIVE):
The individual driving, Jane Doe, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was unlicensed. The owner of the vehicle, John Doe lives with Jane Doe (or Jane lives with John), but - according to PROGRESSIVE - because he didn't have uninsured motorists insurance, theres nothing they can do.
It seems both I, and the owner of the other vehicle have PROGRESSIVE which is how they found my claim, when the other party filed theirs. I was disheartened when they told me the situation, and said "Well if he DID have this thing on his insurance he would be paying you", and told my story to this motorcycle forum I frequent.
However someone there said that the above is a line of crock. He said "uninsured motorist" only refers to someone hitting YOU (not someone driving the vehicle), and that their is a bare minimum that is applicable here (in regards to insurance) regardless of who is driving the insured vehicle. I can get behind the UNinsured motorist line, as that does sound bullshit and doesn't make any sense from what they told me. However, I want to make sure - before grabbing a lawyer that PROGRESSIVE is trying to dick me around and not have to pay out on two claims they own.
This all is in CALIFORNIA by the way.
Long Story:
So, I was an a motorcycle accident. An individual turned in front of me, not yielding the right of way. Police report and PROGRESSIVE agree. Heres "the problem" (according to PROGRESSIVE):
The individual driving, Jane Doe, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was unlicensed. The owner of the vehicle, John Doe lives with Jane Doe (or Jane lives with John), but - according to PROGRESSIVE - because he didn't have uninsured motorists insurance, theres nothing they can do.
It seems both I, and the owner of the other vehicle have PROGRESSIVE which is how they found my claim, when the other party filed theirs. I was disheartened when they told me the situation, and said "Well if he DID have this thing on his insurance he would be paying you", and told my story to this motorcycle forum I frequent.
However someone there said that the above is a line of crock. He said "uninsured motorist" only refers to someone hitting YOU (not someone driving the vehicle), and that their is a bare minimum that is applicable here (in regards to insurance) regardless of who is driving the insured vehicle. I can get behind the UNinsured motorist line, as that does sound bullshit and doesn't make any sense from what they told me. However, I want to make sure - before grabbing a lawyer that PROGRESSIVE is trying to dick me around and not have to pay out on two claims they own.
This all is in CALIFORNIA by the way.
"Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
ED! on
0
Posts
So the only way this makes sense to me is if Jane Doe was excluded from John's policy and YOU don't have uninsured motorist on your policy.
I was always under the impression that no matter what, if the vehicle is insured, it's the other party that's responsible for it. Even if he leant it to Bob and Frank, James is still responsible for any accidents that occur with his vehicle. The Uninsured part only comes into play if the person isn't insured, for instance, maybe it's not required in their state(?) and your insurance covers the accident if it turns out to be their fault.
I hate legalese though, and trying to make sense of insurance mumbo-jumbo piss me off a lot.
Thank you for making it a bit clearer.
If he uses excluded motorist and he gives the person the vehicle, would he not still liable for the damage? This is more a question for Tomanta, though -- something tells me this is going to turn into a small claims court deal where you have to take him to court to get your reparations paid for the damage.
Not sure on that. It'd be more fair for "excluded" to only matter with damage to that vehicle (i.e., your excluded driver crashes into someone else, insurance doesn't pay to fix your vehicle). But fair and what is actually the case are usually two different things.
Thats pretty sound advice, as it does stink of Progressive not wanting to push through a claim against itself.
Get a copy of the police report. Usually in this case, your ins. co. goes after their ins co to pay up.. but since its the same company. they are trying to screw you.
Regardless of if they turn right around an say 'hey, here is a check!', at least talk to a lawyer. They had one chance to do their job, and they are trying to screw you. You shouldn't trust anything they say after that... the laywer will help recover everything you are due.
Unless you left something out.. you should be getting taken care of.
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
However, i doubt progressive will pay. Your best bet here is to get a lawyer and sue them for the cost of damages plus legal fees. Unless theyre rich enough to afford the best fucking lawyer ever, you should win. I dont even think youd need to go to court, just send your lawyer.
Your only other real option if progressive flat out refuses to pay is to contact the other person (or the vehicle owner) and let them know youre planning legal action, and give them the chance to pay you out of pocket first. Dont let them dick you around them, get cash, and get it within a week. If it takes any longer than that, just go the legal route.
Check out my band, click the banner.
Hit them with a letter of demand and watch them crumble.
Call the office of the insurance commissioner of California, see if they've got someone who can advise you on whether or not you're being scammed.
Keep in mind that if they don't have any assets, and the insurance company isn't liable for the damages, suing them probably isn't going to get you anything more than some potential money in the distant future. You may be screwed.
If you do manage to get money, remember that any damaged gear is also covered by insurance. Replace your helmet if it so much as touched the ground.
I'm not a lawyer, but think he could have standing to go after the car's owner in court as well, due to the gross negligence of loaning your car to someone who is uninsured and unlicensed.
Well, we know they have a car :P
In this specific case, I would be shocked if Progressive isn't supposed to pay especially if Jeep is right about UIM coverage being mandatory. Take Than's advice about calling the government's insurance rep/ombudsman before you call a lawyer.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I'd go with this.
This applies to pretty much anything that happens to you by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, even if you aren't in a car when it happens. You could be swimming in the refuse from the leaky septic tank in your backyard, and then an uninsured motorist flies through the air and lands in your little stinky makeshift kiddie pool and pops your waterwings - your UM coverage buys you new waterwings.
Keep in mind that your claims adjuster is probably a flunky; they're basically at the same rung in their career as a telemarketer. They probably don't understand much about insurance. And for every victim like you that calls in, ten other scammers call in trying to get something out of the insurance company that they don't deserve. So yeah, they might very well likely feed you a line of crap to drop your claim and get you off the phone.
Look at your policy. "UM" should be on there. Tell Progressive you thought you had UM, that all policies are written with UM. If they still say no, tell them you want to see where in writing you declined it. If they can't produce that, they are in violation of CA law, ask for a manager.
If they can produce that, then yeah, you obviously made a specific decision to sign away your right to any coverage in this situation.
Sometimes they don't have a choice regarding excluded drivers. My brother is excluded on my parents policy solely because of his age. Never mind that he is married, has his own car, lives in another town, and has insurance with another company.
And yes, he has driven my dads truck on occassion (for a week or so while his car was in the shop).
The question is... who lets an unlicensed driver drive their car?
If the person was unlicensed then legally they are not allowed on the road, this automatically puts them at fault and your insurance company should be going directly after this Jane doe, regardless of the fact that she doesn't have insurance. They should be going after her in a civil court for you.
Satans..... hints.....
Just because I let Joe-Bob drive my car for me doesn't mean I'm not liable for any damage or destruction. The owner of the car is liable for all damage that is caused by an uninsured/unlicensed driver, I'd say.
Satans..... hints.....
So did they steal your car or did you give them permission to use it? Those are your two choices, in the former case you're not liable.