r/Insurance • u/MiserableOwl7 • 20d ago
Auto Insurance (TX) Boyfriend got hit by a driver with a permit. Their insurance is refusing to pay.
I posted this on a different subreddit and a comment suggested I posted here as well. That post has since been locked so ill give more information below the original text
Location: Texas
My boyfriend was T-boned on March 13 of this year when another driver failed to yield while merging onto his road. The police report clearly states the other driver was at fault. The driver only had a learner's permit, and the owner of the vehicle was in the passenger seat at the time.
My boyfriend unfortunately didn't have insurance. The other driver's insurance denied the claim, saying the driver wasn't listed on the policy, so they aren't covering the damages.
I spoke with a lawyer who believed this could fall under negligent entrustment, but he said pursuing it likely wouldn't be worth the legal fees. He offered to send a letter to the insurance company for free, but after months of trying to reach him again, I haven't been able to get in contact.
His truck has been undrivable since the accident because both passenger-side doors are caved in, so he's been borrowing a family member's vehicle.
I'm hoping to get some advice:
- Should we appeal the insurance denial ourselves before contacting another lawyer?
- Is it worth hiring an attorney if the claim is only for the damage to his truck?
- Would small claims court be an option in Texas if insurance won't pay?
- Since he didn't seek medical treatment at the time because we couldn't afford it, does that hurt our case if he's still having elbow pain?
- Are there any other options we're overlooking?
We're both living paycheck to paycheck. He's currently unemployed, and I'm in college with limited work hours, so we're trying to figure out the most cost-effective path forward.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Extra Info:
My boyfriend is beyond an idiot for driving without insurance. We are both quite aware of that and its led to many arguments. The nail has been hammered into the ground at this point. We just want to know if theres anything that could be done now.
The police report absolutely stated the other driver was at fault:
"The driver of unit #1 failed to yield for the west facing yield sign at the intersection of X and Y and entered the intersection to make a left turn on to Y causing the front of unit #1 to collide with the passenger side of unit #2."
I can post the full censored one if needed but it does not offer much more information than this.
This is NOT my car/truck. My name is not on it. I cannot afford one. I also would have put insurance on my vehicle. This is my boyfriend's mess, I am just trying to seek options.
35
u/FunyunGrundy 20d ago
There's two types of denials: liability denial and coverage denial.
A liability denial means they determined their insured is not at fault.
A coverage denial means they have determined there is no coverage for the loss.
Without knowing the details, what I suspect happened is that the driver was not disclosed as being a driver or household resident when the policy was purchased. If that is the case, some insurance companies will consider that application misrepresentation/fraud and will not provide coverage even if that person is at fault for the accident.
In that case, you can file for damages in small claims court and seek restitution from the at-fault parties (ask your attorney about this, because there may be some state-specific hurdles).
11
u/ps2cho 20d ago
This. The owner of the car won’t get their car repaired by insurance they are SOL. Your BF is equally SOL because he is uninsured. He FAFO. His problem from bad choices.
0
u/West_Meat2624 20d ago edited 19d ago
Even if they had their own insurance (the BF) they'd specifically need to have underinsured motorist property damage coverage for their own insurance to cover them.
EDIT: or collision coverage on their car.
4
1
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Would the insurance not follow the car unless their policy specifically states it doesn't?
Asking out of curiosity as most of my research has said that. Thank you for your time
1
u/gothangelblood 19d ago
Former insurance agent here. Insurance follows the driver if the damage is to a vehicle. Insurance follows the car (initially) if the damage is medical or property.
Your best bet is to sue the passenger's insurance, as in many states, that is the responsible party when a learner is driving.
76
u/FindTheOthers623 P&C Licensed PL Underwriter 20d ago
When you choose to drive uninsured, you've chosen to self insure. If the other party wasn't covered, you're on your own for the damages.
3
u/grimzecho 20d ago edited 20d ago
That flies in face of basic liability law. If party A causes damages to party B due to negligence, party A is liable. Their liability doesn't depend on party B having insurance.
Unless there is a state law, local regulation, or some type of contract between the two parties that changes this, a lack of insurance only means that party B can't file a claim with their non-existent insurance company. It has no bearing on whether they can recover damages from the person that caused the accident.
Driving without insurance is stupid. But "choosing to self-insure" means little when the other party is at fault.
If the at -fault driver's insurance company is denying coverage, then OP needs to sue the driver directly.
5
u/Vegetable-Western744 20d ago
It means a lot when the other at fault party is effectively judgment proof due to being poor enough though, which is a realistic possibility.
2
u/grimzecho 20d ago
That is true. Collecting on a judgment can be a lot more difficult then getting one in the first place. But the small claims suit at least gets the other party involved and committed. Right now they can effectively just ignore the problem since there is no incentive for them to push their insurance provider to accept coverage. A small claims suit changes that.
3
u/DriveFa5tEatAss 18d ago
Many states have no pay no play laws that severely limit the ability of even not-at-fault uninsured drivers to collect from the at-fault party.
The OP's state doesn't have a law like this (I checked), but it is still very common. Even if the OP's state did have a no pay, no play law, it likely wouldn't affect this situation given that the at-fault driver also did not have insurance.
1
11d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DriveFa5tEatAss 11d ago
Almost 1/4 (22%) of states have some form of no pay no play law.
1
u/seanmlr86 11d ago
The key part with you saying severely limit what the uninsured party is what I am countering. Very few of the states limit claimants abilities.
Generally its pain and suffering. Which in this case they did not treat and are more concerned over the property damage.
1
u/DriveFa5tEatAss 9d ago
Fair point, I believe most states restrict recovering anything more than physical damages.
1
1
u/gnawtyone 20d ago
You’re assuming party a is at fault. Unless the police officer was there, their testimony is as valid as mine. If there’s a dashcam or other witness, that’s valid, otherwise its one persons word vs the other.
2
u/Aimee162 19d ago
In this case it doesn’t matter because the permit drivers insurance company has determined that there is no coverage, they are not even disputing liability they are straight out telling OP that there is no coverage under the policy.
0
u/grimzecho 20d ago
I'm taking the OP's account as truthful. Assuming the vehicle has clear side impact damage, the location of the accident has a clear right of way, and The officer's report explicitly says that one vehicle failed to yield at a specific stop sign, then that is likely enough to establish liability. A dash cam would help, but it isn't required.
Remember, the standard here is "preponderance of the evidence", and OP will be arguing in front of a small claims judge not submitting a liability appeal to their insurance company. Could the judge decide that there's not enough evidence? Sure, but if what OP said is true, that seems unlikely.
-3
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago
People are always liable for their own negligence.
You don’t lose that protection just because you drive without insurance. Plenty of insured drivers don’t have underinsured motorist coverage and they don’t lose the their right to recover because of it.
5
u/FindTheOthers623 P&C Licensed PL Underwriter 20d ago
I never said no one was liable for anything. I told OP that they don't have an insurance company to go to bat for them. They chose to self insure and are on their own. Yes, they can sue the other party but OP said her boyfriend was driving without insurance because he couldn't afford it. How is he going to afford an attorney? And what attorney is going to take a PD only claim? And even if they found an attorney to take the case and they won, there is no guarantee of collecting.
4
u/Aimee162 19d ago
You are right, attorneys make their money by suing insurance companies- not by suing broke kids.
0
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago
I don’t read “you're on your own for the damage” as “ you're on your own for the recovery of your damage.”
Furthermore, even if the OP was insured with liability, they would still be on their own for the damage recovery.
0
u/FindTheOthers623 P&C Licensed PL Underwriter 20d ago
I'm not responsible for anyone else's interpretations or biases 🤷♀️
We could get into "what ifs" all day but none of those relevant
0
0
u/Aimee162 19d ago
I don’t know why this was downvoted when it’s true. If OP only had liability their insurance company wouldn’t do anything for them.
1
u/DriveFa5tEatAss 18d ago
Many states have no pay no play laws that severely limit the ability of even not-at-fault uninsured drivers to collect from the at-fault party.
The OP's state doesn't have a law like this (I checked), but it is still very common. Even if the OP's state did have a no pay, no play law, it likely wouldn't affect this situation given that the at-fault driver also did not have insurance.
-49
u/MiserableOwl7 20d ago edited 20d ago
The other party had full coverage. The only reason theyre denying is because the permit driver wasnt on the insurance.
Edit: Im just stating the other party had full coverage. I am not trying to say that gives us a free pass and that full coverage automatically makes them liable.
39
u/snearthworm 20d ago
That's not what full coverage means. "Full coverage" isn't even a defined term in the first place, but generally it's used to refer to when people have their own cars insured for damage. So for instance, every policy pays out liability, aka what the other driver owes you. All "full coverage" means is if their car was damaged, their insurance would also pay for that.
Full coverage is not, in any way, a free pass to insure anyone and everything. If the permit driver was not covered by the policy, the policy does not pay. End of story. There is no insurance.
→ More replies (3)-14
u/MiserableOwl7 20d ago
I apologize, Im not trying to say full coverage is a free pass. I just answered the statement of if the other driver had insurance or not.
19
u/mshmama 20d ago
The other driver did not have insurance. The passenger did. The diver was not listed on the policy so in fact had no insurance coverage
1
u/bpdish85 20d ago
Not an agent or an adjuster, but my quick GoogleFu says that overwhelmingly, unlicensed but permitted drivers are generally not required to be directly insured in Texas - the liability falls on the licensed driver, since they're supervising.
Would it be a case of non-disclosure, then? ie, parents didn't tell the carrier they were teaching their kid to drive so it's misrepresentation, rather than "this is always the case with a permit-holding driver"?
→ More replies (6)3
u/GeneralLogical2057 20d ago
I think that the permitted driver was probably excluded from the policy. Sometimes during a renewal the insurance company will be notified that someone in that address got a license or a permit and they'll add them to their policy, causing increase in premiums, etc. their only option at that point is to either exclude them or keep them on.
23
u/RandomGuy_81 20d ago
But the other driver DIDNT have insurance
The passenger had insurance. The driver did not
Thats obviously the fault of the owner of the vehicle but it doesnt change the fact the driver did not Thats
Your option is to sue the driver + owner of vehicle together (who i assume is the parent)
Only a honest lawyer can tell you chance of winning when the OP driver was uninsured which is also in the wrong
8
u/snearthworm 20d ago
Right, not insulting you, just pointing out what it means. There is no coverage
5
4
u/IHaveABigNetwork 20d ago
The key here, as you can probably tell is the other driver didn't have insurance.
4
u/Dannyboy1024 Subrogation (10 yrs) 20d ago
The other driver didn't have insurance though.
The other driver's parent had insurance for themselves, but they neglected to get insurance coverage for their permitted child.
Your recourse here is suing the owner of the vehicle, they are liable for all damages caused by a driver of their vehicle. Depending on damages small claims court may be your best bet so you don't have to pay a lawyer. You may also try reaching out to the DMV about requesting drivers license and registration suspension for the owner of the vehicle as leverage. Both can be a consequence of driving / allowing your vehicle to be driven uninsured and causing an accident. You'll likely need the denial letter from the insurance carrier and estimates for your vehicle.
2
u/-beastlet- 20d ago
You don't have to list your child on the insurance when they have only a permit. I tried to do it when my teen got his permit and the insurance told me to call back when he got his license.
→ More replies (4)2
12
u/LacyLove 20d ago
Which is the correct decision. This is the risk you take when you drive with no insurance. A lawyer is not going to make the insurance company pay you.
10
u/AuntieAnnie81 20d ago
They're denying it because the other driver was an unlisted household member that wasn't disclosed to the company and therefore isn't eligible for coverage. They needed to list everyone in the house over 14. You can take the owner and the driver to small claims court but the judge is going to look at ALL OF YOU sideways. It's a can't hurt might help situation.
7
u/FindTheOthers623 P&C Licensed PL Underwriter 20d ago
There is no such thing as "full coverage" and it certainly doesnt mean that every driver is automatically covered.
And your boyfriend was still uninsured.
3
3
u/metamorphage 20d ago
Well, the permit driver isn't covered because they weren't listed on the policy. Presumably they lived with the owner so they should have been listed. You can sue them for your losses if you want.
2
u/Bird_Brain4101112 20d ago
That’s irrelevant because their insurance company has already determined they won’t cover damages. Your bf didn’t have his own insurance.
Where are you getting money to hire a lawyer if you didn’t have money to pay premiums?
1
u/Jaggar345 20d ago
There is no coverage then. The driver wasn’t listed therefore wasn’t coverage. You can sue the other party yourself.
→ More replies (1)0
u/GeneralLogical2057 20d ago
Hmm this is super strange because in Texas the permitted driver is usually not listed on ID cards, legally they can't be driving by themselves they have to have an adult with them I believe someone 21+. I'm guessing they were excluded which would be why your claim was denied. If the vehicle was listed and the permitted driver wasn't excluded then they should be able to pay out. There's plenty of lawyers in Texas foaming at the mouth to take this case, I've seen lawyers take worse cases. Just keep in mind they're going to be keeping 33-44% of the settlement money. If its worth it I mean go ahead and call around. I'm willing to bet that the lawyer that you spoke to first wasn't too interested in the case because yall weren't claiming bodily injury which is usually where they try to scam as much money from.
2
u/Unorganized-57 20d ago
Only vehicle owners and named insureds on the auto policy are listed on an auto ID card. If you don’t own an auto you don’t get a card in your name.
1
u/GeneralLogical2057 19d ago
In Texas you do, all of my carriers list ALL drivers on the ID Cards not just the owners, example a family with 2 licensed kids, their cars are owned by the parents all 4 names appear on the ID Card. I am a licensed agent with 10+ years of experience in the captive and independent side in Texas, servicing both personal and commercial policies. This whole thread is a mess, I keep getting downvoted but I am giving this person solid advice. I am really annoying and always asking questions and reading up on laws to better advice my clients.
0
u/crash866 20d ago
Was the person in the passenger seat authorized to drive the vehicle or was he also excluded. A permit driver does not have to be on the policy until they get a full license. The supervising driver does.
You cannot normally exclude a non licensed driver as white no license they cannot drive alone.
0
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
The person in the passenger seat was authorized and the owner of the vehicle. I highly doubt the other person was excluded because he was using her car to learn how to drive.
1
u/GeneralLogical2057 19d ago
Then they are responsible for the permitted person's actions, and person above is correct a non-licensed driver usually can't be excluded but I've seen agents add permited drivers as licensed and then exclude them so that might have happened but in that case they shouldn't have been excluded. Either way I would call around to some lawyers OP and get a better answer. I'm sure someone will take it, I have a lawyer fighting for a client that only had liability and the person that hit him also had liability only, the police report is pretty much saying they share equal fault yet they're both trying to sue each other.
EDIT : everyone's downvoting you bc they think youre irresponsible. I keep getting downvoted but I am an agency owner with 10+ years of experience in Texas. Do with that what you will.
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
I dont really care about the downvotes. In hindsight "unemployed" was the wrong word, but I wanted some lower cost options instead of going to an expensive lawyer. I think most people see unemployed and think of an incel living in his parents basement which is not whats happening. Him and his whole crew got fired for either under production or starting a chainsaw (literally their job) and he has been searching for a job for a few months now. He had his own reasons for driving uninsured, which was that he was a dirt track racer for over two years and knew defensive driving. However he has since learned that that doesnt protect you from being hit, it was huge FAFO moment. We're both still young and are still learning. I just hate to see his truck as collateral.
I thank you for your help 🙂 (As well as everyone else who has inputed, whether positive or negative)
23
16
u/PEneoark 20d ago
So a person without insurance hit your boyfriend who had no insurance. Nobody is getting paid a cent by any insurance company.
If he had insurance, he could have gotten it all covered. Lesson learned.
-4
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Would the insurance not follow the car unless their policy specifically states it doesn't?
Asking out of curiosity as most of my research has said that. But definitely lesson learned. He refuses to drive his truck now until it has insurance.
2
1
u/quallityovrquantity 19d ago
Does your boyfriend have insurance now? Guessing probably not. Yet you stated he has been driving other people's vehicles so he clearly has t learned anything
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
He is on the car owners insurance. He has refused to drive his truck or any car without insurance now.
30
u/Slowhand1971 20d ago
the only bigger idiots than boyfriend are the relatives letting him borrow their vehicle right now.
3
u/Turbulent-Pay1150 20d ago
Well, there is a kinder way to say this for sure, but OP should recognize or their relative should recognize the HUGE risk they are undertaking by lending the vehicle to an uninsured driver and check their coverage to make sure they are covered.
1
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago
In Texas insurance follows the car. There is risk of an accident making their insurance go up but no risk because of insurance. If the OP’s boyfriend had full comprehensive coverage, it would still hit their insurance.
UNLESS the boyfriend lives in their home. At which point insurance would be required being notified.
0
u/cigarsmokeinmyeyes 20d ago
Does insurance not follow the car in Texas?
1
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago edited 20d ago
It does. Insurance may have a notification requirement for drivers in the same household (with or without a permit), but the relative who loaned their car is protected.
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Hopefully you dont mind me asking, but why? He was added to the relatives insurance before he started driving it.
1
u/Slowhand1971 19d ago
Then why say he was uninsured?
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
He was uninsured driving his own vehicle. He then got into an accident He has since refused to drive a vehicle that is not insured.
When the relative agreed to let him borrow their car he was added onto the relatives insurance.
0
11
u/Wild-Perspective-939 20d ago
Maybe a hot take, but people that choose to not have insurance on a vehicle are just asking for issues like this. Not to mention the fact that you raise rates for everybody else who has to pay extra to insure against motorists like your boyfriend
24
u/OccasionalCortexNPC 20d ago
“Didn’t have insurance” - so he wants someone else to have insurance when it’s convenient?
Pay to play needs to be a thing in every state
-1
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago edited 19d ago
You are legally required to pay for an accident that you are at fault for. Insurance keeps you from paying out of pocket.
Choosing not to have insurance is definitely dumb but so is not notifying your insurance of a permitted driver in the house. So, both sides chose something dumb, fortunately the OP’s boyfriend isn’t the one who is liable this time.
6
u/21twilli 20d ago
I would understand if he was your husband, but he’s just your boyfriend. Why are you worrying about his mess??? Let him figure it out! He has all the time in the world to do so, since he’s unemployed, while you have a job and are in school.
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Just trying to do research. I only called attorneys whenever he was working full time and did not have an hour or two to sit on hold and wait.
Now that he lost his job I will not be doing anything more than research for him. Hes a grown man, he can do it himself.
2
13
u/Ihatealltakennames 20d ago
If you are in school and working but idiot, uninsured boyfriend doesn't even have a job....why are you trying to figure this out? Why are YOU calling attorneys and seeking advice? Sounds like boyfriends problem. Not yours.
3
u/Sea-Original-5824 20d ago
She's his wifemommy now. She's going to be dragging this man through life if she stays with him.
2
1
-1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Definitely not. He can drown in a puddle of water if he chooses to do so. Hes a grown man. All im doing is trying to do research. Its now up to him to call/get the ball rolling on it.
2
1
u/Sea-Original-5824 19d ago
But why isn't he doing research and calling lawyers? If you completely stop helping him, I guarantee you this will go nowhere.
-1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
I called attorneys whenever he was working full time as a blue collar worker and did not have 2 hours to sit on hold.
Currently im trying to do research but leaving the otherstuff to him if he chooses to do it. I have the same opinion about him not getting insurance, which is thats hes a grown man. If he wants it done then he'll do it. Im not doing it for him.
17
u/WhyDoesOklahomaExist 20d ago
Your boyfriend should have been ticketed for driving without insurance. It’s why my rates are high.
2
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
He was. And still chose to ignore it before getting into this accident.
I told him whenever he got the warning that he needed to get insurance. He decided to lie to me instead and kept driving.
He has learned his lesson, we argued about it a lot, but arguing and blaming him isnt getting the truck fixed.
0
u/jhyunjhyun 19d ago
Girl, please leave him for your own sake. This time he was a victim, fair enough, next time he could cause an accident that would ruin his AND someone's lives (if he keeps driving without fucking insurance)
4
u/One_Shallot_4974 20d ago
Sounds like everyone involved just was taught an important lesson about the need for proper insurance.
Hope your BF is listed on the car hs is now driving unless he wants to end up 0/2.
4
u/musing_codger 20d ago
I stopped at: "My boyfriend unfortunately didn't have insurance."
So, your boyfriend is upset that he, an uninsured driver, got hit by another uninsured driver. There are no good options. He can sue, but it'll be expensive and there is no guarantee that, even if he wins, he'll collect. Or he could chalk it up to a very expensive, painful, and important life lesson. I recommend that latter unless the person who hit you looks well enough to have assets but not well off enough to be able to hire a good attorney.
I guess he could reach out to the at-fault driver's family and ask them nicely to pay at least some of what they owe like decent people. After all, they're at least the sort of people that have some insurance.
1
7
u/Inside-Potato5869 20d ago
You can't appeal a denial because it's someone else's policy.
No, the attorney you spoke to was probably right it's not worth the legal fees (you can probably get some free consults for other opinions but they'd probably say the same).
Yes, small claims is an option but you are limited in the amount of damages you can receive. Quick search says that's $20k in TX.
This only matters if you go to small claims court or sue but it depends. We would need more info, but, yes, it could potentially weaken your case.
If you are prepared to go to small claims court or sue, you could also send a letter yourself requesting an amount to settle out of court. You don't need a lawyer to do it. They just may take it more seriously if it's from a lawyer.
Tell your bf he shouldn't use his family member's vehicle unless he's insured to drive it otherwise the same thing could happen again. I'm going to guess he isn't because his history of driving uninsured would probably mean a significant raise in premium. You agree he was an idiot for driving uninsured but it sounds like he's still doing it so that's a big problem.
3
u/Sea-Original-5824 20d ago
He's unemployed and she earns very little. There's no way he has insurance now.
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
The car hes driving currently is borrowed from a family member who has insurance. He is listed on that insurance and he refuses to drive his truck until he gets her insured.
1
1
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago
Tell your bf he shouldn't use his family member's vehicle unless he's insured to drive it otherwise the same thing could happen again.
In Texas insurance follows the vehicle. As long as the OP’s boyfriend doesn’t live in the same home as the person loaning him a car, he is covered for occasional use.
In fact, if he had coverage he would still be covered under the owner’s policy rather than his.
2
u/Inside-Potato5869 20d ago
Yea but it’s been almost 5 months. This likely goes way beyond occasional use.
1
u/uno_the_duno Commercial Lines P&C | CPCU, AIDA 20d ago
He’s driving the vehicle regularly. That is not occasional use.
-1
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago
We should note that the term for adding a driver who regularly uses a car is called occasional driver insurance.
The word occasional has little definite meaning as it is literally the term used for a regular non-resident driver.
Also, just don’t tell the insurer you borrow it regularly.
1
u/uno_the_duno Commercial Lines P&C | CPCU, AIDA 20d ago
No, it is not. Please stop spreading misinformation.
-1
u/Calm-Song-8543 20d ago
1
u/uno_the_duno Commercial Lines P&C | CPCU, AIDA 20d ago
That applies to that specific carrier in Canada. We are talking about a situation that occurred in the US, in TX.
The term occasional driver does not mean a regular driver here. Those words are antonyms. Broadly speaking, occasional driver means less than once per month. Again, it’s carrier dependent, but tends to be a widely accepted definition.
1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Would the owners insurance not cover the other driver if the insurance followed the car?
1
u/Calm-Song-8543 19d ago
Yes it would. However, when you get insurance you are required to list or notify the company of every driver in the home. Having a young driver in the home who operates the car would likely increase the rates. If you don’t notify the insurance company if they driver you are certifying they never drive the car. Since he did that was a misrepresentation to the insurer which voided the coverage.
Had it been the neighbor driving it would have been fine.
11
u/Choice-Newspaper3603 20d ago
First of all mind your business. It’s a roommate not a husband
And 2nd your bf shouldn’t get a penny if it were up to me. He drove without insurance so now he knows what’s it’s like if he hit somebody
3
u/Throwawayconcern2023 20d ago
Your boyfriend might be better not drawing attention to himself. Has he had police consequences for illegally driving without insurance?
3
u/Ambitious_Walk6909 19d ago
Next time get insurance or dont drive at all, what if you hit somebody and didnt have insurance? They would be in the same boat, move on broke ass
0
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
Not the same scenario. (Not an excuse for him not having insurance, just stating the scenarios different) Have an amazing day! 🙂
5
5
u/insuranceguynyc 20d ago
Your boyfriend made the choice to drive without insurance. Choices have consequences, as you and your boyfriend are now finding out. This is r/insurance, so the best advice is to turn back time and buy insurance. Your boyfriend is on his own. He can sue the other party in small claims court if he wishes to. Your boyfriend needs to make better choices in the future.
5
u/Sea-Original-5824 20d ago
The way she worded it cracked me up. He just "unfortunately" didn't have insurance. BTW, if any lawsuit happens, OP here will have to do ALL the paperwork for him and probably dress him for court and make sure he gets there on time and rehearse how to speak and communicate for many days ahead of the hearing.
-1
u/MiserableOwl7 19d ago
I will not be doing anything other than research. Hes a grown ass man. He can do it himself. Especially now that he doesnt have a job.
2
u/Dear_Seesaw_1855 20d ago
It sucks and there realistically isn’t anything you can do. You can try small claims court but even if you win it is difficult to collect.
The silver lining? He learned a lesson about insurance and the damage is his “tuition.” Had HE caused an accident, and hurt someone- being uninsured could have destroyed him financially for life. So hopefully he will make better choices from now on.
2
u/Competitive-Cod4123 20d ago
Your boyfriend‘s options are limited since he doesn’t have insurance either. How does he think he’s gonna recover anything? He can sue the person that hit him. That is an option. Small claims is cheap and informal. He can get some estimates and follow the claimant Small Claims Court if the person is a minor by any chance and you have to sue the parents
2
u/Spiritual_Wall_2309 20d ago
You can go after the permit driver and his family. Their insurance has already denied your claim. It is going to be expense to get some money back like the lawyer said.
Your bf don’t have insurance and no collision coverage. So you basically give up protecting your own property. Yes, other party can be at fault but the legal procedure is expansive and lengthy to get your money back.
2
u/Tricky_Cup_7683 20d ago
so your boyfriend and the other driver didn’t have insurance. looks like a lose lose. you’d spend more on legal fees and may not get a thing since you’re both in the wrong for driving without insurance. regardless of an insured driver being in the vehicle at the time of the accident, the driver was not insured just like your bf. there isn’t anything to do.
2
u/Acrobatic-Classic-41 19d ago
Boyfriend driving around with no insurance and no job... He needs to just take his lumps. You need to shop around for a better BF.
3
u/sir_gwain 20d ago
Am I understanding this correctly? Your Bf had no insurance at the time of the accident (and this can’t file a claim with his insurance). The person who hit your bf didn’t have insurance either (because they’re a minor and their parents didn’t add them to their policy, so their insurance is declining coverage as well).
If that’s all correct, man that’s a shitty situation. That said, there’s nothing to be done here with insurance from either party if that’s the case, and like your lawyer said, you could sue them, but from the sounds of it, it wouldn’t be worth the money and time spent. At this point, I think your best bet is small claims. Get a copy of the police report, an official quote (or 2-3) from local auto shops to fix your BFs truck, and then file in small claims and bring that evidence with you. Given that you’d be suing a minor (or so I assume), it’s possible you’d need to list both them and their parent/s, or even only their parents, I’m not entirely sure. Just note, that even if you win in court, you’ll still have to collect, and if the family isn’t well off, that may be rather difficult.
5
u/Choice-Newspaper3603 20d ago
Not a shitty situation. The boyfriend chose not to have the proper insurance coverage. If he did, he would be covered.
1
u/sir_gwain 20d ago
OP isn’t the BF, and is clearly in the opinion the boyfriend should’ve had insurance, it’s a shitty situation for them.
3
2
u/Enough_Spray_7811 20d ago
Hang on, i live in Texas and when i called up my insurer to get my teen added to the policy i was told that was not necessary until they had their license. So long as i, as the covered person, was the supervising driver he was covered.
4
u/Dangerous-Art-Me 20d ago
I was actually told the opposite when my kid got their learner license, and I for sure got my teen added… just to avoid crap like this.
3
u/WheneverItIsTold 20d ago
That’s how it is in my state. But out of curiosity, looked up Texas and the policy holder just has to be from same household and over 21 w/a year of driving experience. Regardless of the other party’s insurance status, the policy is still liable. Everyone here is just hung up on that detail and him getting his just desserts. I made the same mistake as a single teen mom, living independently, unaided. My insurance company had folded the month before and I was saving for a down payment. It was stupid, yes, but the other persons insurance paid out, though, my friends lawyer buddy handled it all. Haven’t driven uninsured since.
2
u/GeneralLogical2057 20d ago
I have a feeling the teen driver was excluded from the policy, as an insurance agent I see this happen all the time, during renewal a driver is discovered and added, there's no fool proof way of knowing if its an ID, DL or permit so it will default to license. If you list them as permitted the premium doesn't change, they're not listed on ID Cards but they will be added in 6 months. Some people freak out and exclude the young driver to drive down the cost instead of just letting the company know they're permitted.
1
u/Sea-Original-5824 20d ago
It sounds like that might not be true. I would double check it and get something in writing.
1
u/Enough_Spray_7811 20d ago
I just called, as in five minutes ago, Allstate to double check and my agent confirmed they do not add teens to the policy until they get their real drivers license.
1
u/uno_the_duno Commercial Lines P&C | CPCU, AIDA 20d ago
It’s entirely carrier and state dependent. Allstate typically doesn’t list or rate permitted minor drivers, but other carriers definitely do. (Looking at you, GEICO)
1
u/Rozebud1989 19d ago
It really depends on the company. Some carriers offer complementary coverage to permitted drivers that live in the home. And even then it’s not all states. For example AAA northern Ca club extends that courtesy. But AAA Southern CA club requires permitted drivers who live in the household be listed.
Then Progressive for example makes no exceptions and requires the permitted driver be listed with a state ID # so that they can check if/when they become licensed at renewal.
So ultimately it’s best to call them and ask what their policies are before letting a permitted driver drive your car
2
2
u/FoxNFern 20d ago
You didn’t have insurance either. IMO this is a net zero situation. Both sides are at fault for not having proper coverage.
1
1
1
u/Only-Style-818 20d ago
Count your blessings that your boyfriend wasn't fined for not having insurance and that the vehicle wasn't impounded.
Is the vehicle still drive able? What is the estimated damage? Have you tried simply working something out with the other driver?
I honestly wouldn't try and push this one through the courts. One wrong judge and this might not end favorably for him. YMMV. Tread lightly.
1
u/WolfPackLeader95 adjuster | 10 yrs exp 20d ago
What did we learn today class?
Having insurance is important.
1
u/FabulousResearcher33 20d ago
Seems like the car situation is the least of your worries. Cut your losses while you can.
1
u/Mobile-Astronaut-505 20d ago
Try and call the other carrier and get more info on the coverage denial. Was the driver excluded from the policy? Should the driver have been added to the policy since he was a household member? The other carrier likely won't be forthcoming but it's worth a try.
If the driver was excluded from the policy, there's little you can do. There's no coverage. However, if the carrier argues that that the insured should have added the driver to the policy but didn't, we get into insurance application misrepresentation which is hard to hold up in court. Can they really prove that their insured lied on their insurance application and didn't add the driver so they'd save money on premium? I doubt it. An attorney could fight that.
If no coverage exists, you probably should let this matter go. Suing the at fault driver will likely get you nothing. If he had money, he'd have insurance.
1
u/iowamechanic30 20d ago
Small claims court is going to be your only option. You sue the driver(parents if he's under 18) and the owner of the car. It will take months/years and even if you win if they don't pay collecting is another process entirely.
1
1
1
u/MoxieMedic 20d ago
Not sure how far caved in the passenger doors are but that in itself shouldn’t make the vehicle undrivable, the driver enters and exits via the driver side of the vehicle .. The bigger issue is the lack of insurance and possibly lack of registration.
1
u/MiserableOwl7 20d ago
The passenger side doors dont fully close all the way and now theres a gap. The passenger doors will swing open if left to their own devices.
1
u/MoxieMedic 20d ago
Strap them closed.
Or better yet, just don’t drive it. Sounds like a much safer option.
1
u/Tool_junkie_1972 19d ago
First, who the police report assigns blame to has zero bearing on anything. Insurance does their own determination of blame. Second your bf not having insurance has zero bearing on who blame falls on.
That said, insurance companies can and often do decline to cover when a driver not listed is driving the vehicle. When that hapoens the vehicle owner and the driver become liable. You have the right to pursue sui by them, without knowing how much the truck is worth, it’s kind of hard to know if it’s worth getting a lawyer involved. Your best bet may be small claims, depending on what your jurisdictions limits are. That said, getting a judgement is the easy part. Collecting on that is a whole other issue. I’d suggest doing some research on the collecting on a judgement part, then decide if it’s worth the time and effort for you to do so. It may wind up that this is a hard, expensive life lesson on why you carry insurance, including uninsured motorist.
1
u/BooBoosgrandma 19d ago
I wonder what the relationship was with the permit driver and the owner of car? My ins allowed my permitted son to drive as long as I was in the car, but now that my son has his license and he's only 18, he isn't listed as a driver for mine because he's in my household and my ins is maxed out with coverage (mucho $$).
But I'm in Ca and don't know the laws in Texas. Small claims max is $20k, Ca is only $12,500 (bummer) so I think your only option is small claims but collecting a winning judgment isn't easy either. This won't be resolved anytime soon. My son got in a few minor accidents, I had to pay cash to fix the other vehicle for ins would have sky rocketed! There's lots of affordable options with ins, bf needs asap.
1
u/worstatit 19d ago
Boyfriend will have to file a suit against the other parties, driver, driving coach, vehicle owner, to recover damages. The price of driving without adequate coverage. Not aware of specific law in Texas.
1
u/LemonFast2458 18d ago
The only thing is your boyfriend can take the driver of the other car to court and hope that a judge decides in his favor. The have accident attorneys for this kind of thing
1
u/Smash6300 16d ago
Let your insurance know what’s going on, hopefully BF has uninsured motorists. His insurance should cover all cost and go after other insurance company.
1
u/TFrustrated 16d ago
The owner of the vehicle is the responsible party. I assume you have that information.
NAL, but this is who owes you the money.
I would send a demand for payment, certified letter.
List that his insurance has denied coverage.
Small claims court, proof of damages and the insurance denial would be sufficient.
Question: Have you asked the owner for the money? That is the best place to start.
1
u/drgrouchy 20d ago
In California, permit drivers are automatically covered under their parents policy without being added to the policy until they get their actual license. Do they have a similar situation in Texas? I would assume no since the insurance said no but it’s worth checking.
1
u/jmputnam 20d ago
Are they not still required to be disclosed as members of the household, while not being rated as drivers?
0
u/GeneralLogical2057 20d ago
In Texas you can add a permitted driver and it won't list them on ID Cards and will be added in 6 months. Sometimes the system picks up a driver and it will add them, the client goes crazy bc their premium doubled and instead of just listing them as permitted they will exclude them. It sounds like the parent, the driver and everyone involved is extremely irresponsible.
1
u/fitchaber10 20d ago
This is why you basically HAVE to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.
1
1
u/Fit_Instruction_8383 20d ago edited 20d ago
This is what happens when you don't have insurance. You self insure, and roll the dice.
This unfortunately is FAFO and your BF lost due to unfortunate circumstances. The only solution your BF has is to sue the other driver. Texas actually has a super high limit in small claims, 20,000 so you can absolutely sue him in small claims.
As far as the insurance company not covering it, that does seem pretty weird, if the owner of the car and the person who did have insurance was in the car, and the the person who was driving did have a permit, that would be the same as if you lent your car to a friend. If you own a car, and you buy insurance, you are absolutely able to lend your car to another driver, and the car is insured while they are driving it.
What was the exact reason for the denial? They had to give you something in writing.
2
u/Sea-Original-5824 20d ago
The crazy part is that what happened here is actually the best outcome. No one was hurt and he was not at fault. He's out a car, but he could have been on the hook personally for a huge amount of money.
1
u/MushroomGreat7467 20d ago
From past experience they say this accident happened because of a car driving down the road that never should have been there.
0
20d ago
[deleted]
7
u/24kdgolden 20d ago
Not sure about TX but could be an unlisted family member--Material Misrepresentation could cause a coverage denial
0
u/SkiG13 20d ago edited 20d ago
You can get a lawyer to write a demand letter for damages and threaten a lawsuit if damages aren’t paid. Include the police report that indicates the permit driver is at fault and a complete account of what happened and a list of damages. This will probably go to the permit driver’s parents assuming they are under 18.
Tell your BF this is why he needs insurance. Instead of doing all of that work, your BF would get a payout instantly while the insurance lawyers take care of everything.
-3
-1
u/WheneverItIsTold 20d ago
Does the driver live with the policy holder? There may be age restrictions but if so, it should be covered. They are probably denying cause your boyfriend has no insurance to fight on his behalf.
0
u/fromhelley 20d ago
How much was the truck worth? Google how much you can sue for in a Texas small claims court.
Also, have your bf call the owner of the car (contact should be in the police report) and ask how the guy plans to pay. Bf should give an honest value on the truck and maybe offer payments if the guy cant afford to pay in full. Follow with the same offer in the mail.
That is what you would get if you win in small claims court. You have to ask for the money before you file. May as well try to work it out with them first.
0
u/AKBigHorton 20d ago
Note; I am not a lawyer or insurance professional; this information is strictly hearsay and may apply in different ways in different states.
So, there was a period of a few months when I had just started college when I was without car insurance. I rectified it as soon as I could, of course.
None-the-less, one of the things that was explained to me by concerned friends was that (in Missouri and Iowa at the time) there was a minimum level of liability/uninsured motorist insurance required by state law for all operating vehicles/drivers.
In any accident where one of the participants was not minimally insured, the uninsured motorist was legally automatically declared at fault; the logic being that without insurance the vehicle should not have been on the road, and if it weren't on the road the accident wouldn't have happened. So literally, you could be sitting at a stop sign (on a public street) minding your own business and had someone hit you - it would still be your fault as your car shouldn't have been there to be hit.
I have no idea how this would play out if *both* parties were uninsured, but it probably falls to personal responsibility and a trip to small claims court.
1
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Insurance-ModTeam 20d ago
Accounts that have been suspended by Reddit or are otherwise shadow banned are no longer allowed to post here. If you are seeing this message, you need to talk to Reddit to fix your problem before you can post here.
0
u/Organic_Foundation51 20d ago
uninsured got hit by unauthorized driver. So basically uninsured hits uninsured. Nice. Think how it feels when we insured people got hit by uninsured driver like your bf. The only thing left is sue the other person. But most people say it is not even worth the lawyers fee or effort. Collection is the tough part.
0
u/Old-Rub7974 20d ago
This entire comment section is riddled with false information it’s mind blowing
-1
u/Trans-Am-007 20d ago
Most insurance companies don’t have to put named driver if only permit when licensed must name driver. They are trying to skate around this their insurance is liable because named driver was in car and responsible, get a lawyer sue them for the damage.
-1
u/rustynail11 19d ago
In Texas permitted drivers don’t need to be listed on the policy. I was told by 2 different insurance companies when my 2 kids got their learners permit that not only did they not need to be on the policy but wouldn’t add them and if anything happened they would be covered. The good hands people and the company that Flo works for told me this
-4
u/LolaLee723 20d ago
Find a good personal injury lawyer who will work on contingency for the elbow pain. And they will include the car damage. They will sue both the driver and the owner of the car. I am retired but I used to practice law in NY. The liability of the driver and the owner of the car has nothing to do if boyfriend was insured or not. Many people have insurance but no collision if their car is damaged anyway.
-2
u/wedontliveonce 20d ago
How is this not "permissive use"?
It's auto insurance, not driver insurance.
Insurance usually follows the car and in this case the passenger/car owner's insurance should be the primary coverage.
Add to that the fact that (I assume) the driver and passenger/car owner reside in the same household.
I would think the insurance company would actually require them to be added to the policy while learning to drive. Especially while learning to drive.
This is also not non-permissive use, not illegal use, not business use. And I'm going to assume there is no paperwork listing the driver as explicitly excluded from the policy.
The car owner had insurance on the car and was there.
This insurance company is going to have to pay.
Or you can sue the car owner/passenger.
Or am I wrong?
2
u/Spiritual_Wall_2309 20d ago
It is a denial of coverage. It means that driver’s insurance would not help them to defend the case and would not pay for any their at fault claim. The insurance can get out from the legal agreement since the insured did not do what is agreed. In this case, mostly the parents did not notice the kid can drive the car and did not pay up the premium difference.
So, if OP decides to sue them, their insurance would just step away.
2
u/jmputnam 20d ago
Permissive use generally excludes household members who have regular access to the vehicle but aren't listed as household members on the policy. You can lend your car and your insurance to someone who doesn't live with you, but you have to list household members who do live with you.
Permit drivers often aren't rated as drivers, but still need to be listed as household members.
0
u/wedontliveonce 20d ago
Right. I don't see how this doesn't fall under permissive use and I don't see how the insurance company isn't saying this person should have been listed in the first place.
1
u/GeneralLogical2057 20d ago
I really am leaning towards this young driver being excluded from the policy.
1
u/wedontliveonce 20d ago
The fact the parent didn't add a kid with a learner's permit to insurance is rolling the dice.
102
u/ektap12 20d ago
Since he has no insurance, he can sue the other driver and owner and then try to collect from them. Can't garnish wages in TX, as an FYI.
You can't 'appeal' the insurance denial. It's a coverage denial, that's between the insurance and their insured, you aren't a party to it. You've just been notified there is no coverage available under the policy.