Questions and Answers
Your Questions About New Driver Car Insurance Advice
I paid for three different insurance policies each month.?
I have Badger Care, an accident/ dismemberment/ death insurance, and a cancer/ death insurance. Obviously, all through different companies. I feel that I have gotten myself into a big mess that I don’t understand. And I know I have overlapping coverage. My question- Is there an unbiased person, in my area, that I can meet with to explain each of these policies in plain English, and give me advice on which to keep and which to cancel. Thank you.
I’d suggest you can go to anyone at your church.
You can also go to a local agent, tell them you’re not going to buy anything from them, you just need some advice – and bring donuts.
You can pay a fee, and see a financial counselor.
I’ll give you my opinion, though!
Badger care, isn’t that Wisconsin Medicaid? Can’t beat it for the price.
Accidental death & dismemberment insurance is a massive waste of money – as is Cancer insurance. Both of those are kinda like buying car insurance, but it only covers if you get hit by a car where the driver is wearing a clown suit. They’re both cheap, because the possiblity of them paying out, is EXTREMELY remote.
If you want insurance to pay out if you die, you buy life insurance. It costs more, because it pays out no matter HOW you die. Accidental death, won’t pay if you die of old age, or cancer, or a heart attack, or an infection, or childbirth, or anything EXCEPT something outside your body, that hits you, and makes you die on the spot. If you die of an infection AFTER the piano hits you, it’s not covered. MOST people don’t die of an accident. And although lots of peope die from cancer, MOST don’t.
I’d keep the BadgerCare, cancel the other two. I know, people will criticize that, because you haven’t given enough information – heck, if you already HAVE cancer, keep the cancer policy. But for 95% of people, the only one you want to keep is the BadgerCare.
Is the owner of a hit and run vehicle ultimately responsible for their vehicle?CA?
My girlfriend and I were rear ended by a hit and run driver. The police found the abandoned vehicle that night. We got the report with owners insurance information and his address. When we contacted his insurance company they said they may not pay for my girls car or any injuries because they are not sure who was driving the car. The car was never reported stolen by the owner so would he and his insurance company still be ultimately responsible? Any California law knowledge or references would be a plus. Thanks
Why handle this yourself? If you have collision insurance, file a claim with your own insurance company. They will pay to repair your vehicle , then they and their lawyers will pursue the “runner” and do whatever is necessary to collect from him.
If you have no collision coverage, you are on your own.
In any case, why aren’t you communicating with your own insurance company? Why are you trying to handle this yourself? Why do you have insurance if you don’t use it?…..at least for advice ?
When you have insurance…. USE IT !
Car insurance for teens. Do I NEED to be listed on my parents policy?
My parents have triple A auto insurance and I have recently gotten my drivers license. I have tried to research the requirements for insurance by law on the California DMV website and the most concrete statement I found was some numbers that cover various damages and injuries (DMV website is not working properly so I cannot look it up). My parents insurance obviously covers the basic and more. However, my parents policy states that “Any relative that has consent of the owner to use the insured vehicle is covered by this policy” – These are not the exact words as I don’t have the policy on me, but it is pretty damn close. In the “definitions” portion of the policy, it states a relative as anyone related by blood, and some other stuff. I am my parents son so I am obviously related by blood, thus their policy coverage extends on to me when they give me permission to use their vehicle. I did not find ANY California laws that required me to be on the policy. i only found information that said I only need that minimum coverage which my parents policy does provide.
We did contact triple A about this and they did not give us a reasonable answer. All they said was that they WANT my parents to add me because THOSE ARE THE RULES. Seems like they just want more money in their pockets.
Can someone give some advice? Thanks.
Response to answers: Why would triple A not cover an accident I was involved in if the policy STATES that anyone related by blood is covered. I realize it is not reasonable that ALL relatives are covered , but that is how the policy states it and thus my actions would abide by contract rules. There is no reason anyone should “assume” anything in a contract. For that there is the “definitions” section which defines everything perfectly clearly. I really am looking for specific evidence, such as a California law or statement in my policy, that clearly prohibits my actions which so far, do abide by policy rules.
You need to either be specifically listed on their policy, or specifically EXCLUDED from coverage – and many insurance companies flat out won’t exclude a household member.
You do not get “free insurance” by driving their cars without being listed on the policy.
Your parents policy has a permissive use clause – but that does NOT extend to a HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, or anyone with REGULAR access to the car – regular generally means, they drive it more than five times a year.
Lots and lots of people try to defraud the insurance company by not listing their kids. They end up screwing themselves, by their “do it yourself” insurance, when they read the REST of the “permissive use” clause.
You are correct. California law does not require you to be listed on the policy. And the insurance company is NOT required to provide “free coverage” for an unlisted household member with regular access to the car. And, by failing to report a new driver to the insurance company within 30 days of the new driver getting a license, your parent has violated one of the CONDITIONS of the policy, thus voiding coverage for you.
Don’t read just the one sentence. You need to read the ENTIRE policy – definitions AND conditions, AND the application that was filled out.
I understand what you mean about not getting a “reasonable” answer – that usually means, you didn’t get the answer you wanted to hear.
The REASON why the policy doesn’t have to cover you, is because the policy does NOT state “any blood relative gets automatic coverage”. You are grossly mis-estimating the verbage. Here are the EXACT sections you need to read, on the standard PAP policy:
1. Definitions. A family member means a person related to you by blood or marriage. Note, this is the DEFINITION of a family member – it is NOT saying that the family member has coverage.
Part a: who is an insured, section b, you or any family member . . . GO TO YOUR APPLICATION, where it asks you to list all family members. Are you listed? Now, go over to part F, general provisions: FRAUD: We do not provide coverage for any insured who has made fraudulent statements. That application – is a statement.
Also refer to changes: section B – if there is a change to the information used to rate your policy (yep, that would include your newly licensed teen) we may adjust your premium. This section specifically refers to operators using the vehicles.
They don’t HAVE to ask your permission to add you as a driver. They can (and will, every year at least) run a DMV report, find out you’re driving, and automatically slap you on. They usually WILL ask you to cooperate by providing your license information. If you don’t do it, they’ll flag your file, and uprate you – and STILL pull your info from the DMV and slap you on the policy and charge you for it.
Ironic, that you’re complaining that THEY WANT TO CHARGE YOU FOR YOUR INSURANCE! How WEIRD is that? LOL
Powered by Yahoo! Answers