<p>My son realized he had too much to drink and knew he shouldn’t drive home. His friend volunteered to drive, and (apparently he had too much to drink, too) went up over the curb and drove into someone’s yard. His insurance company is saying it is our insurance company’s responsibility to cover the damage to the yard ($2400) because it is the car that is insured, not the driver. Does anyone know anything about this?</p>
<p>They are correct, the insurance goes with the car, not the driver.</p>
<p>It is true. The first line of insurance is the insurance of the car. If that insurance doesn’t cover the whole nut, then the driver’s insurance is next in line.</p>
<p>We were hit years ago by a car whose owner had no insurance, but the non-owner driver of the car had insurance. We collected from the non-owner driver only because the owner of the car had no insurance.</p>
<p>These folks are correct. However, that doesn’t mean that you are without remedy. You can sue the driver in small claims court for your deductible. And your insurance company will most likely sue the driver’s insurance company in subrogation to get their money back. And the driver should get “points” or whatever your state calls it for an at-fault accident, which could easily cause his insurance rates to go up.</p>
<p>Of course, all these things take place behind the scenes. Your insurance rates are unlikely to go up because of this accident, since it wasn’t an insured driver at fault.</p>
<p>Oh, dear. I was hoping the insurance company was trying to pull a fast one. </p>
<p>So, we will have to sue my son’ s friend in order to get the deductible back? Maybe he will just pay us. </p>
<p>Won’t they raise our rates because we have another claim?</p>
<p>I really hate all this insurance business. Last year my daughter and I were driving on a highway on our way to do some prom dress shopping and we were hit from behind by a semi. I didn’t go through a yellow light, but the truck behind us thought I would. Thank goodness we were just sore for a few days and not injured. But because the driver claimed I cut in front of him (and I did not) and there were no witnesses, I had to be responsible for 25% of the damages. We went to arbitration and they reduced it to 15%. I said I was not guilty, so I asked to go to the next step. (I think that was the subrogation that you referred to, Chedva.) I didn’t feel like I should pay one penny for something that was not my fault. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, my agent didn’t tell me that because the trucking company was Canadian we couldn’t go to subrogation. Because I went to the next step, the claim went against our clean record of 15 years and I lost $1300 in rebates. (What a racket!) Had I just paid the 15%, it would have cost me about $500. Live and learn. Sometime you shouldn’t stand up for what you think is right. :(</p>
<p>Your son’s friend thought he was doing your son a favor taking over the driving since your son was clearly inebriated. And your son should not have let his friend drive your car.
I don’t see a cause for suing your son’s friend.</p>
<p>I agree. I wouldn’t sue the friend, who was doing a favor.
I am curious, however: Was the friend drunk, too?
The son of a friend of mine got a drunk driving ticket. It ended up he was the designated driver. He told his parents that in his circle being “designated driver” meant that you had less to drink than your friends. It didn’t mean that you hadn’t had anything alcoholic to drink.</p>
<p>I suggest having a long talk with your S about drinking and driving and about designated drivers.</p>
<p>I agree with Marite. I can’t imagine why you would even consider trying to recover anything from your son’s friend. Depending what your company’s policy is on rate increases, I would imagine that it is very likely that this will increase your rates. It’s an at fault accident caused by someone driving your car and which resulted in damage to someone else’s property.</p>
<p>Also, insurance companies are, indeed, able to recover payouts from Canadian insurers through the process of subrogation (all that means is that they send a documented report of what damages were incurred).</p>
<p>The rates may go up even if your son was not the driver. The insurance company may say that because of this situation the car is more likely to be in an accident because your son made decisions that puts it in a position to be more likely to be in an accident (in this case drinking too much and giving the keys to someone else, which is a good thing, but that other person is unknown to the insurance company, which is bad). There’s no question that him not driving was the right thing to do, but the insurance company will still now likely considering him a higher risk.</p>
<p>I certainly do not intend to sue my son’s friend (I was just referring to post #4) but, as he made the choice to drive, I feel that he is responsible for his actions. I would hope that he offers to pay for the damages. </p>
<p>I am praying that my rates don’t go up. I understand what you’re saying rocketman, but it seems to me that the insurance company should think my son was responsible for not drinking and driving. </p>
<p>alwayasamom, I’m not sure if I have all my terminology (arbitration, subrogation) straight, but the bottom line is our insurance company said
we had to pay, and the winners were–the insurance companies. Maybe I should have fought it , but I believed them about the Canadian thing. </p>
<p>I did nothing wrong and I had to pay. The Canadian insurance company didn’t have to pay 100% of the damages for an accident that their insured caused and my insurance company now doesn’t have to pay me a $1300 rebate because they paid a $500 claim. Yes, just call me stupid.</p>
<p>“I certainly do not intend to sue my son’s friend (I was just referring to post #4) but, as he made the choice to drive, I feel that he is responsible for his actions. I would hope that he offers to pay for the damages.”</p>
<p>If I were in your situation I would not accept any payment from my S’s friend because was my own S’s fault that he was driving, and the friend’s driving may have literally saved my S’s life.</p>
<p>The friend was doing a favor because your S made the choice to get drunk. I don’t believe in accepting money from anyone who causes damage while attempting to help my family, particularly when that help is needed due to a family member’s behavior.</p>
<p>While it’s good that your S didn’t drink and drive, his making that decision shouldn’t cause his helpful friend to have to pay for damages.</p>
<p>I’m curious: Who does your S think should pay for the damages?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, well under the circumstances he clearly made the correct choice… but he may still be seen as being a higher risk that others simply because he got into that situation to begin with. The insurance company would look at it by saying “this might mean he often loans his car to others either as a designated driver or for other reasons… we don’t know who these other drivers are going to be or what their records look like so therefore we’ll need to charge higher rates to cover ourselves for that unknown parameter.” </p>
<p>You can be in several accidents where the reports say you were not at fault and your rates can still go up. Why? Because even though you were not at fault, you’re still getting into more accidents than others and thus, at least statistically speaking, you are a higher risk to the insurance company than others. The rates are all set by super complex actuary equations to find those that are statistically more likely to cost them money and hence who should get higher rates. If they could find a strong correlation between eye color and claim rates they would use that.</p>
<p>A few years back a friend let his brother borrow his car. His brother went through a cross street just when the light turned green, hit a car and killed a woman. My friend’s brother didn’t have much asset, so the woman’s estranged husband came after my friend. My friend was very much at risk of losing his home and his savings.</p>
<p>After my friend’s experience, I upped my liability insurance and I never let anyone drive our cars. It doesn’t matter if it’s friends or family. I would rather give them money to get their own car rental, which I have done for my parents. My daughter is forbidden to let any of her friends drive her car.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go after your son’s friend either. You say that the friend was also apparently tipsy, so your son was negligent in entrusting the car to his friend. If you want to get your deductible back, I’d get it back from your son–it was his excessive drinking that set the whole chain of events into motion.</p>
<p>I’m with you oldfort. As I’ve gotten older and with a college savings account to protect, we’ve also upped our insurance levels (and got an umbrella) and don’t let others drive our vehicles. Why risk your kid’s education for someone else?</p>
<p>" His friend volunteered to drive, and (apparently he had too much to drink, too) "</p>
<p>I’d missed the fact that the friend had been drinking, too.
Your S is the one whom you need to be getting the deductible from, and he also needs to be the one paying for any increase in your insurance. His behavior and poor choices are what caused all of the problems.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>He was driving YOUR car. Your son gave him the keys. Sounds like the driver wasn’t the only one part of the “choice making”.</p>
<p>“Your S is the one whom you need to be getting the deductible from, and he also needs to be the one paying for any increase in your insurance. His behavior and poor choices are what caused all of the problems.”</p>
<p>So my son’s friend, who chose to drive drunk, is not at all a cause for this problem?</p>
<p>No: let’s get this straight. It’s YOur car. You let YOUR son drive it. He was DRUNK and gave your the keys to your car to his friend who was also drunk.
Your son’s friend may choose to share in the cost of replacing that fence. But that’s between your son and him. As owner of the car, you are responsible as far as the insurance company is concerned.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your help. I appreciate your support.</p>