Adult Daughters Insurance Company Trying to Make Claim on Parents

wiagent

New Member
I'm looking to see if anyone else has had this situation. I have a grown adult child temporarily living with her parents because she just got back into town after traveling abroad. She has her own car and own insurance and was not in the household when I wrote the policy. After being back, she had a substantial liability claim that could go beyond her limits and the adjuster from her company is calling me to put a claim under her parents policy in order to (protect her)

I called the company to file the claim and they pretty much asked me why and then said I didn't have to. Has anyone else dealt with this? I keep getting calls from the adjuster and would like to get past this.
 
I've heard of moving to parents' policy after limits are exhausted but never seen it in action. I'm curious to see what others have to say as well
 
There was a recent thread talking about underinsured motorist coverage. That was a new term to me so I did a little reading and looked at my insurance.

Kansas requires underinsured motorist in addition to liability. Does your state require that?

If so, wouldn't the other party get max amount from your daughter's insurance and then go to their own underinsured motorist coverage for the balance--leaving you no need to provide additional financial protection/backup for your daughter?
 
There was a recent thread talking about underinsured motorist coverage. That was a new term to me so I did a little reading and looked at my insurance.

Kansas requires underinsured motorist in addition to liability. Does your state require that?

If so, wouldn't the other party get max amount from your daughter's insurance and then go to their own underinsured motorist coverage for the balance--leaving you no need to provide additional financial protection/backup for your daughter?

Tennessee does not require it, but it does require a wavier be signed if it is not taken or if taken for lower limits that liability.

Obviously you can sue anyone, anytime, anywhere. However, I fail to see how her parents would be liable if they were not financially supporting her and she was an adult.
 
There was a recent thread talking about underinsured motorist coverage. That was a new term to me so I did a little reading and looked at my insurance.

Kansas requires underinsured motorist in addition to liability. Does your state require that?

If so, wouldn't the other party get max amount from your daughter's insurance and then go to their own underinsured motorist coverage for the balance--leaving you no need to provide additional financial protection/backup for your daughter?

In the past I've had uninsured motorist paid out when a client was struck on a bicycle by an uninsured driver. If the victim has underinsured motorist above the other persons insurance I would think it would kick in.

It's a very bizarre situation and I don't understand why the adjuster would be looking for this info if they are the primary insurance. I can see the lawyers looking for it but not the adjuster.

Uninsured motorist is required while underinsured can be denied in WI...but usually everyone has it.
 
Not exactly the same but I have a family member that also had a grown daughter on her own for over 10 years with her own insurance and that daughter went to a cabin for the weekend and at a party, a guy that had previous DUI convictions asked to borrow her car and she said no. She went to sleep and he took the car anyway and crashed it injuring himself and 2 occupants. A civil case found that she did not exercise reasonable care and should have anticipated he would take the car. This was in Wisconsin by the way. So they went after the moms insurance because she had been on the title 10 years previously when she bought it for the daughter at 16. The mom was found partially liable and they went after her. The only saving grace for her was that the driver went to prison, a passenger also went to prison for something unrelated and the 3rd guy died and no one pursued the case. If she had not been on the title, I think they still might have pursued it, arguing residency since she was kind of couch surfing at that time and not having updated her drivers license. Since there were serious injuries I believe she would have lost everything if it had stuck. Now ask me if she ran out and cosigned a car to replace the car that was totaled for the daughter right away..yes she did.
 
In the past I've had uninsured motorist paid out when a client was struck on a bicycle by an uninsured driver. If the victim has underinsured motorist above the other persons insurance I would think it would kick in.

It's a very bizarre situation and I don't understand why the adjuster would be looking for this info if they are the primary insurance. I can see the lawyers looking for it but not the adjuster.

Uninsured motorist is required while underinsured can be denied in WI...but usually everyone has it.

Is he a public adjuster or a company adjuster? Just based on what you have said, he could really just be looking out to protect her. Or he could be looking for some way to get some of the risk off his company, no telling. Although I agree with you, usually it is the job of attorneys to go looking for other deep pockets.
 
There was a recent thread talking about underinsured motorist coverage. That was a new term to me so I did a little reading and looked at my insurance.

Kansas requires underinsured motorist in addition to liability. Does your state require that?

If so, wouldn't the other party get max amount from your daughter's insurance and then go to their own underinsured motorist coverage for the balance--leaving you no need to provide additional financial protection/backup for your daughter?

UM is basically the last resort, though. It'd typically go No-Fault -> Med Pay -> BI from other party if they're at fault -> UM if other party doesn't have BI, not enough BI, or a hit and run kind of scenario.

So yes, the victim could use their UM in this case if they have it, but (a) they may just not have it, and (b) the process would want to pursue all available BI first before moving onto claiming UM
 
Wisconsin Lawyer: Wisconsin's New Automobile Insurance Law:

Background info that may be useful to you in starting some thought processes about the position you are in.

----------

UM is basically the last resort, though. It'd typically go No-Fault -> Med Pay -> BI from other party if they're at fault -> UM if other party doesn't have BI, not enough BI, or a hit and run kind of scenario.

So yes, the victim could use their UM in this case if they have it, but (a) they may just not have it, and (b) the process would want to pursue all available BI first before moving onto claiming UM

Please note distinction between UM and UIM. And were I a parent in this situation, I would be starting from the position that other party's UIM takes precedence over any claim against a parent. (And want to be presented with documentation as to why it doesn't)
 
Thank you for all the responses. They have been very helpful. I guess what it comes down to is would you guys/gals submit the claim and be done with it or simply wait and see?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top