Because that's not how car insurance works. You purchase a policy to insure your car (and in most cases other drivers in your family). Car insurance doesn't insure the individual against whatever vehicle he may be operating on any given day. That's why your car insurance is based upon the make/model/year of your car, as well as which state it is registered in, how many miles you drive it per day, etc.
It also seems from the article that they haven't determined who was at fault.
It's not that straightforward. You are required to have insurance to drive a car by law for a reason. So the question here is whose insurance pays, which depends on the policy terms, not that the car owner is guilty of anything. You can insure the vehicle for all drivers for instance, in which case there would be ambiguity.
In my state, you can't get auto insurance without a car. You can be a licensed driver, you can have money to hand the insurance company for your premium, but if you don't own a car, you can't get car insurance. I don't know if you could get general liability insurance that would also cover you driving other people's cars.
But if it's the car that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be listed on the policy? The way I understand it is even if I'm not listed on someone's policy and I'm driving their car, their auto insurance covers my fuck up when I cause an accident.
Doesn't seem right, but I suppose that's the way it works.
If you've read other comments here you'll find that is actually typically not the case in the US. You can drive a friend's car and be insured because the insurance is tied to the car regardless of who's driving it; granted it's not black and white.
Insurance is based on the coverage I purchase. Are you saying the insurance company is instead selling me an unlimited amount of liability based on the price of _other_ cars and not the $50k of coverage that I selected when I bought the policy?
Mandatory insurance is there to protect other vehicles. It's to ensure that the person at fault is financially capable of covering the costs of the damage they cause.
Basically Car Insurance isn't to protect you. It's to protect other people from you. Which is why someone can get in an accident while driving drunk and their insurance company has to pay.
Some car insurance policies cover rental cars. My insurance covers car rentals, so that I don't need to pay for the insurance coverage when I rent a car.
From the article: "According to a preliminary police report, their car was hit by an oncoming car that seemed to have been traveling south in their northbound lane. The report concluded that Mr. Fortuna would be found at fault."
That makes obvious sense, but then the question becomes who has to have insurance on the car that's being driven: the owner/primary user, or the current driver? Generally I can drive my parent's or friend's car without an issue even if I'm not the person insuring the car, because the car is insured, but if I get into an accident the person responsible is not necessarily the driver, it's the insurance holder. Would we require every driver to have insurance for the car they're driving (and if we did, laws would have to chance because you can't currently have insurance "per hour").
At that point isn't it more of a concern that the supposed completely random person driving your car isn't insured? Personal responsibility rules kick in before then.
It also seems from the article that they haven't determined who was at fault.
reply