If your sister does something reckless, you can also be held liable even if you aren’t in the car.
Steve, it seems to me and to the DMV quite the other way around. If she gets into an accident, she and her insurance deal with it, fix it, pay for it and even total it. My insurance does not care (they aren’t paying) DMV and I do not care (II wasn’t driving). Easy! Trust me, as silly as it may appear to some, it is the way to do it. I don’t even have to ask my sister “what happened?” (as long as she is okay). If it gets damaged, they will fix it. If it gets totaled, I tell my insurance and withdraw the policy. Simple
I see your need and agree with it. I went thru the same with my sister. Itsme’s link covers it all.
We had 2 policies with a GF, living in the same house. One agency denied coverage, another issued. My ex and I, living in separate homes, had both our names on a title, one joint policy (later 2 separate policies from the same agent).
Be prepared, however. They will probably issue liability only to her. Comprehensive and collision will most likely fall on your policy (hers fixes the other car, not yours). Looked at from the insurer’s perspective, that makes perfect sense.
You are right to an extent, but if we have separate policies and insurances. I would not be. What makes it so is adding her as an additional driver on my policy. In other words, adding another driver on an existing policy truly complicates matters financially, D M V records, insurance status for the primary policy holder (me) and creates unnecessary conflict between my sister and I. I can only agree with all of you regarding cost effectiveness of our premium. Clearly one premium is much cheaper than two. But it isn’t irrational or silly.
checked on that as well. It was loud and clear: the D M V cares about one thing, and that was that “the owner of the title must have registration and insurance at all times.” The Insurance? They want to issue as many policies as clients can buy (the more the better), but they don’t want to worry about guess what? Fraud, multiple claims. They don’t want the headache of investigating the unnecessary, much less dealing with Fraudulent clients. That’s understandable. But insurances are all about more premiums and prefer less headache with who did what and who was driving not to mention no added risk to the primary (me when I am not driving) (her when she is not driving) policy holder. Don’t worry guys, I won’t recommend that D M V require a separate registration for each driver! You see who owns the car is totally secondary. It is all about safety, security and coverage.
You mean only me can register it (which inevitably requires my insurance policy) since I own the title. Do not worry, I won’t recommend that the D M V require two separate registrations for each driver!
Yes, thank you for sharing your case. Very helpful indeed.
You keep referring to the DMV. The key parties here are you, your sister, the insurance company, and the other party in a potential accident. They’ll sue everyone.
1 Like
Truthfully, I had a similar situation this year, with my Neon. She’d been reliable for 190K miles, but I bought a new car at retirement. I looked at that option of passing it to my sister. I finally just signed it over. She’s supposed to pay for the car, but I doubt that will happen.
But your solution is perfectly valid, too.
There is a real plus to my choice. I won’t have an attorney look for deeper pockets, if someone is injured. If there were a suit, they can sometimes come after both parties. (But that is a different story.) I’d call it remote, but don’t want to lose a lifetime of savings to gain $1000.
Again, I responded to your question “so, you are supposed to insure it right/?” Yes, the purpose of my own insurance is to get the registration So, the D M V is the one requiring me to have the insurance even if I do not drive it. But it is a plus because I would like to be able to drive it. Dual Policies are perfectly legal. Second, the case under which the law permits suing me would be limited to the case stated in this link https://www.maggianolaw.com/can-car-owner-sued-another-drivers-accident/. which in nutshell does not apply to us. My sister is fit to drive, I maintain the car, she is not a minor and no commercial use of the car is intended. The separate policies apply separately to their fullest extent depending on who was driving the car at the time of an accident. How many drivers allow their loved ones to drive them around with or without being added as additional drivers? It is clear if she has another policy she is more secure than how it is being done by most people. I remember when we lived in Massachusetts, my ex wife was driving when my car was rear ended. She panicked and didn’t know what to do, how to deal with it. Luckily, I had full coverage but still opted to pay out of pocket and not report it. Otherwise, my Met Life insurance agent was going to deduct points, raise premium and reduce preferential status of my own policy. My sister is getting her own insurance policy, not mine. Otherwise, she can buy a new one or I will rebuild one for her. I rebuild cars as a hobby.
It seems like you think your sister’s policy will come into play if she has an accident while driving your car. How do you know that? Or did your sister’s insurance company agree to sell her a policy on your car?
Exactly, I think you made the right decision in both cases. In our case, she can afford a second policy. She would have one whether she is driving a car with a title in her name or mine. The title makes zero difference when it comes to safety, maintenance, coverage and legality.
texases is correct. You will likely to be sued, if damage exceeds your sister’s policy. I wonder if your policy will pick up the slack, or be denied as double coverage. (It’d be interesting to find out.)
Yes, you would need insurance to drive the car, but I don’t think it has to be a policy on that particular car. (Your state may vary.) You’d most certainly need a policy on it for full coverage.
I don’t know if you use an agent, but they can sometimes help with situations, especially if they know you might take your business to another agency. Unfortunately, buying thru an agent can cost more, especially with companies that do a lot of online sales. (Geico comes to mind… 30% higher on my agent quote.)
I would think not, because his policy is written to cover his liability, and the sister isn’t a driver on his policy.
The sister’s driving it and has her own insurance policy, her liability comes into play. Any judgment/settlement above her liability limits will be her responsibility to pay, and then if she doesn’t pay it, the mere fact that he will be on record as knowingly allowing her to drive his car means they might decide to sue him too since the car is insured by him as well. And the insurance company saying “we’re not paying” doesn’t just make the problem go away, it means they go after his assets instead of the company’s.
And then they’re in the same situation they seem to be trying to avoid - getting into a fight over who pays.
Honestly, after re-reading this thread I think OP is, intentionally or not, trolling us. There’s a common-parlance term for it, but it’s not terribly polite. The definition is “a person who constantly asks for your advice, yet never uses your advice” for those curious.
1 Like
Mr. Shadow , me thinks you may be correct . If not Trolling reading his first post he is certainly proud of his abilities . You would think a Biochemist and teacher would know how to do research without the help of a web Forum.
1 Like
This won’t happen unless she also has collision coverage which you do not mention above.
People tend to place a lot of trust in their family members. What happens if down the road unbeknownst to you, she reduces her coverage to the bare minimums or stops paying altogether?
Dual policies won’t look so good then. If it were me, I would want to be certain I was as insulated from judgement as possible. That would mean controlling the amount of coverages and ensuring the bills were paid and up to date. That can only be done by adding her to your policy. Just pointing out a risk factor, you seem bent on doing it the other way. Hope everything works out for you.
Yes, you got that right. I am proud of my abilities, not just Biochemistry, science and medicine but the law and those who have to deal with it namely the D M V, Drivers, Car Maintenance and Mechanical Skills and last but not least Insurance and Logic. After all I was a teacher. Listening is very essential to learning. I listened, but you are all making assumptions that aren’t rational. I will tell you why. But I said to myself the Bible says "
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. As it turns out you guys remind me of Jobs’e friends. The good news, I am not okay (unlike JOB). For one, I was informed of the perfect legal premise after I posted the question. Second, I Second, the issue is worthy of public attention, and, respectfully, I was trying to have fun by involving the Car talk people who have their own open minded policy show (tell me how much nonsense and silliness exist on that show if not outright insult and ridicule to the callers who have legitimate and serious concerns and questions? Third, you use the term “SUE YOU,” your counter arguments (if any) are applicable to all accident claims or injuries regardless of the number of claims, the number of policies and or the ownership of the title They all rely on coverage, responsible driving, dependable but limiting insurance and applicable laws. There is always a maximum payout, and in some instances the insurance will pay to the max and settle. Most people do not use the term SUE YOU when dealing with accidents. The risk is the same regardless of who owns the car. Fourth, I have been kind all the way through. The tone of your responses seems a bit sarcastic and insulting and worthy of correction. I was not about to take an advice that was incomplete and one that tried to say don’t ask on here! Please be kind. Last, there is truth to the saying in the bible where it says A man of too many friends comes to [a]ruin,
But there is a [b]friend who sticks closer than a brother. At first, I thought M Perry was being understanding, but I usually let my reliable policy take care of being a real “brother.” If the insurance does not agree, well, my sister can get her own car and her own insurance. She is not getting on my policy. I do not recommend anyone on anyone’s policy for that matter. But here is my closure unless you propose we keep it going: We are all correct in agreeing that the Insurance (the provider of the service) has to make the final call. The law says “Yes, I Can!” Until the Law changes, t is insurance’s loss of policy and its premium if they refuse my business. Again thanks for trying. I will look for advice on this issue somewhere else.
Why not title the car in her name, and when the other car is ready have her title it back to you? Where I live you can give your car to a relative and not have to pay sales tax.
1 Like
Simple question: did your sister get a policy on your car?
I didn’t leave out the Collision. I meant Collision, Comprehensive, Liability and EVERY part of a premium policy. It goes without saying. The assumption that she won’t pay is non existing (she is all about bills and does that for living). The assumption of insufficient coverage is likewise. She is very determined but is sincere. And tell me, how many family members made sure their loved ones weren’t using the car and so specifically instructed them not to drive it, but when they are away on vacation, it becomes alright (“okay but be careful/” “Thanks dad, I won’t tell anyone, not even you dad if I could help it!”)? There are no guarantees in this life to any of these assumptions. I don’t know why two full-premium path is hard to accept if the law is okay with it? More security, More safety. Less headache. More expensive. I am not determined to do anything irrational, not to mention I wouldn’t be able force the Insurance to carry a policy it does not want. I am determined not let anyone on my policy. That’s the Gist of it.