Insurance [Merged 10-6]

[FusionTalon]

In that case it will be no different then the policy being under his name and his parents address.....

The only way he can get the huge break is if the policy states that the parents are the primary driver.......which is illegal and might lead to the insurace carrier dropping his whole family.

If they say he's the primary driver....the amount will not differ any then it being under his name......

halik

man u aint getting this, its legal to be as a second driver, my dads the primary driver of my car, thus his driving record covers my 'teenage inexperience' it is actually legal to do that but insurance companies dont like it but it is LEGAL

 

[halik008]

man u aint getting this, its legal to be as a second driver, my dads the primary driver of my car, thus his driving record covers my 'teenage inexperience' it is actually legal to do that but insurance companies dont like it but it is LEGAL

no it's considered insurance fraud......

halik

 

[psychlow]

no it's considered insurance fraud......

halik

"Misrepresentation" is the term used in the industry.

The reason that a teenager on their parent's policy will pull a better rate is because of the way the policy is rated. A teenager on their parent's policy gets the benefit of using their parents credit score, homeownership discounts, prior insurance history, etc.

A teenager on their own usually has a shitty credit score, doesn't own a home, and has no prior insurance.

In addition to that, many insurance companies average the drivers over the number of vehicles rather than assigning dad to his car, mom to her van, son to his car. Some will say, for example:

OK, there are 3 drivers. Mom's a 1.0 risk, dad's a 1.5 risk, and junior is a 3.5 risk. Averaged over 3 vehicles, that's a 2.0 risk. So that 2.0 risk is applied to all vehicles rather than a policy where the teen has bad credit, no prior insurance, and no discounts and is a 6.0 risk - with no mom or dad on the policy to average out the risk factor.

All of those numbers are speculatory - it's just to explain how the rating works.

 

[96TSi_Chris]

no it's considered insurance fraud......

halik

Correct

 

[FusionTalon]

"Misrepresentation" is the term used in the industry.

The reason that a teenager on their parent's policy will pull a better rate is because of the way the policy is rated. A teenager on their parent's policy gets the benefit of using their parents credit score, homeownership discounts, prior insurance history, etc.

A teenager on their own usually has a shitty credit score, doesn't own a home, and has no prior insurance.

In addition to that, many insurance companies average the drivers over the number of vehicles rather than assigning dad to his car, mom to her van, son to his car. Some will say, for example:

OK, there are 3 drivers. Mom's a 1.0 risk, dad's a 1.5 risk, and junior is a 3.5 risk. Averaged over 3 vehicles, that's a 2.0 risk. So that 2.0 risk is applied to all vehicles rather than a policy where the teen has bad credit, no prior insurance, and no discounts and is a 6.0 risk - with no mom or dad on the policy to average out the risk factor.

All of those numbers are speculatory - it's just to explain how the rating works.

very well said

 

[FusionTalon]

no it's considered insurance fraud......

halik

legal is the keyword here bud

 

[PaintMunky468]

psychlow and fusiontalon are right, it is L E G A L. What's so hard to understand?

 

[96TSi_Chris]

psychlow and fusiontalon are right, it is L E G A L. What's so hard to understand?

So someone who is driving the car all the time (primary driver) but is registered as a secondary driver is legal even though you are lying to the insurance company a.k.a insurance fraud??? Ive always understood thats illegal and I dont buy it, lets see some proof.

 

[Denji]

i'm on my parents isurance as the primary driver of my car. It is less expensive than being on my own insurance BY FAR, and completely legal, i talk to my state farm agent every now and again. I dont know about any of that other stuff, ive never had to actually claim my insurance before.

 

[totalburnout]

So someone who is driving the car all the time (primary driver) but is registered as a secondary driver is legal even though you are lying to the insurance company a.k.a insurance fraud??? Ive always understood thats illegal and I dont buy it, lets see some proof.

Regardless of whether you're listed as primary or secondary driver, you can drive the car all the time. If you're on the policy, you can drive the car. The insurance company can't say, well okay you can drive the car XXX amount of times a month because you're only the secondary driver listed. Its not something that they can prove and say that someone else infact didn't drive the car before him, or was not planning to afterwards.

If its solely your car, then you should be listed as primary but I dont think thats theres really anything they can say or do to prove if you were listed as the secondary. My family switches cars around all the time depending on whats the last car in the driveway and what car I have to drive for the day, i.e., they won't take a sports car but they'll drive the same SUV i drive if its last in line.

No biggie.

 

[Steve Hebert]

One thing that EVERYONE seems to be missing when discussing insurance policies is that evert State is very different with is'snsurance laws - and most everyone here is from a different state.

For example Fusion and I are from Hew Hampshire, We do not even have to have insurance to drive a car. NONE - Zippo - Don't need ANY.... And we would still be completely legal.... as long as...

We don't go out of state...
We have an accident free record.....
(also there may be a min age requirement - not sure on that)

I have friends up here who have gone years without ever paying a penny in car insurance.

So BEWARE - if you ever come to New Hampshire and one of us uninsured motorist ever hits you - how you gonna collect? Sue us? That only works if we got money..

But to the subject at hand - my opinion - as a 49 yr old adult - I cannot see why a parent would not have his child on his insurance policy.

 

[PaintMunky468]

Very good point

 

[halik008]

One thing that EVERYONE seems to be missing when discussing insurance policies is that evert State is very different with is'snsurance laws - and most everyone here is from a different state.

For example Fusion and I are from Hew Hampshire, We do not even have to have insurance to drive a car. NONE - Zippo - Don't need ANY.... And we would still be completely legal.... as long as...

We don't go out of state...
We have an accident free record.....
(also there may be a min age requirement - not sure on that)

I have friends up here who have gone years without ever paying a penny in car insurance.

So BEWARE - if you ever come to New Hampshire and one of us uninsured motorist ever hits you - how you gonna collect? Sue us? That only works if we got money..

But to the subject at hand - my opinion - as a 49 yr old adult - I cannot see why a parent would not have his child on his insurance policy.

There are means....like docking part of you paycheck until the damage is paid for...or collection on ur house, car, etc.....

all would be decided in court after ur sued.....

halik

 

[totalburnout]

There are means....like docking part of you paycheck until the damage is paid for...or collection on ur house, car, etc.....

all would be decided in court after ur sued.....

halik

"You can't squeeze blood from a turnip"


You'll never get paid out the lump sum and the government isn't going to bankrupt someone over it.

 

[halik008]

and the government isn't going to bankrupt someone over it.

don't bet on it...

halik

 

[totalburnout]

don't bet on it...

halik

*bet on it.*



The government does not just strip you of everything you own, not even drunk drivers.


You think far too pessimistically to be realistic in any form. Use logical reasoning not far fetched worse case scenario.

 

[asexton6969]

im agreeing with halik. I have a friend who's dad did something similar to that. He was hit by an uninsured driver who didnt even have a job. Well he sued and now the guy basically gives him his paycheck. The guy is basically homeless. He deserves it tho, he ran a stop sign, hit my buddy's dad and he's partially paralyzed. So they sued the guy over it. The guy brings in their father's paycheck since he can barely work now. If he stops paying they go to his family. Last i heard he moved back in with his parents and is continuing to pay..The goverment settles these things very well.

 

[DSM MAN]

They take peoples houses and cars ALL the time.

 

[totalburnout]

They take peoples houses and cars ALL the time.

Impounding a car is one thing. Taking a house is also one thing. Thats not bankrupting someone. And you have to be doing something stupid to have your house stripped of you. More times than not they'll take your house and car because of selling drugs out of them, most other things do not warrant that. So no, it doesn't happen 'all the time', only under certain circumstances.

 

[slugsgomoo]

The reason that it's possible for a person under the age of 18 to be listed as "secondary" and not get an eye batted at it, is that legally a person under 18 (being unable to enter a legal contract) cannot purchase their very own policy, or if they can (depending on state law) I don't know of any states that let you put your name on the title of a car as the sole owner, when you are <18.

Once you're in college, you can still be on their policy at over 18, but whether you are primary or secondary, you're still going to cost way less than having your own policy. What psychlow said is very apt. They asses risk via averages, not by vehicle. Vehicles do however have their own risk scores assesed, and that causes your rates to change there.

For instance, my dad had a 3000gt VR-4 when i was 16. Even though we swore i'd never get to drive it, insurance didn't care. The risk factors between me being 16, and that car being a "high risk" combined caused the rates to be unmaneageable.

Anyway, those of you bitching at $1000> rates can kiss my ass. I'm nearly 22, live on my own, no tickets, no accidents, decent credit and i pay around $1250/6mo for a 92 4runner. When i add the DSM to that policy, it will jump to 1800/6mo (for the two cars, but maxed out coverage on both).

That's another thing. How many people with really cheap rates have massively high deductibles, or really low coverage amounts?

 

[erc's_gsx]

There are means....like docking part of you paycheck until the damage is paid for...or collection on ur house, car, etc.....

all would be decided in court after ur sued.....

halik

this is the one thing i agree with halik. how can u not pay the price when putting someones life in danger? if you're uninsured and hit someone, what are u going to say? "sorry, i accidently rear ended your car! hopefully, you have enough money to pay for all the damages! well anyways, i'll probably see you out on the streets again!" Please dont tell me you are going to get away without paying a dime!

 

[halik008]

Impounding a car is one thing. Taking a house is also one thing. Thats not bankrupting someone. And you have to be doing something stupid to have your house stripped of you. More times than not they'll take your house and car because of selling drugs out of them, most other things do not warrant that. So no, it doesn't happen 'all the time', only under certain circumstances.

what exactly do you call it when the govn't takes ur house away because u have no other ways of paying for the settelement???

You have much to learn.....the govn't takes peoples houses and cars for all kinds of reason...oweing taxes, not paying loans, not paying allymony, dealing drugs and the list goes on an on....

Wake up and smell the roses they are pleanty of people who filed for personal bankrupcy b/c govn't took everything from them.......

halik

 

[totalburnout]

what exactly do you call it when the govn't takes ur house away because u have no other ways of paying for the settelement???

You have much to learn.....the govn't takes peoples houses and cars for all kinds of reason...oweing taxes, not paying loans, not paying allymony, dealing drugs and the list goes on an on....

Wake up and smell the roses they are pleanty of people who filed for personal bankrupcy b/c govn't took everything from them.......

halik

Your not neccesarly bankrupt if the government seizes one of your assets.

Wake up and smell the roses that you had to have done something seriously wrong to have your house seize. Yes they can seize your possessions but only under certain circumstances as I stated above. Its not a common occurence in that a significant number of people have this happen to them, a VERY VERY small percent. Anything is possible but to say unrealistic stuff such as what you spewed here is just dumb. :thumbdown

 

[PaintMunky468]

I think its funny that we are all arguing about this, and yet PlayBoy (the origional poster) has not commmented on a single thing, and has probably disregarded this thread. Lets just say that it differs from state to state (as stated earlier) and that some of of think its stupid to put a new driver with a DSM on his/her own insurense policy (I think its stupid) and some of us do not. But until we can get an insurense agent in here to tell us the facts, lets stop arguing about mis information.

 

[asexton6969]

To the original poster, you need to convince your parents that putting you on your own insurance will result in a bad ending. It will place a burden on you to deal with insurance company. It will cost you WAY too much. Being under your parents insurance will do all of you more good than harm. I'm under my parents insurance, my father is the primary driver of my car and im secondary (even though he never drives it). it was even suggested by the insurance company that he do that. I pay $84 every 6 months for liability!! I now have two speeding tickets (not in the eclipse in my old beater) One was for 10 over which was my fault i didnt pay attention. The other was for 14 over and i got screwed on that one. I have tons of people who were behind me and even said i didnt speed. The cop even admitted after my court appearance that he screwed up... he just didnt have the BALLS to admit it in court becuz he would've lost his job! He was an older guy, instead of losing his job over he let me get screwed over. Never trust a cop, if i could've taken my witnesses i would've won. Unfortunately for me it was a school day and none of their parents would let them out. So now my insurance will go up and i had restrictions placed on my license for 30 days. If i get one more ticket i lose my license till im 18 i believe.