Can Car Insurance Company Make Someone Pay....

[ToddC]

Show me the "who is an insured" section of a collision coverage form. I don't think there is one. It's an coverage added to the PAP form.....but the PAP form references only liability coverage. IIRC.

Not sure where you were going this this. The "Who's an Insured" applies to the whole policy but it applying to collision is moot. It does not come into play as collision is a first party coverage to the named insured only anyway. If I loan you my car and you run it into a wall it does not change any thing if you are an "insured" or not. But in my concern it does matter... as a liability claim. The insured driver gets liability coverage from the same carrier who is attempting to say he's liable for the damage to their named insured's car. The end result being that they cannot collect from the driver.. as if they tried, they'd also owe him a defense... from themselves. Me thinks that would look really odd in court.

 

[xrac]

The question here is there one or two cars involved. I think it was one. If it is one the insure should pay the claim to the owner of the vehicle and then go after the driver should they choose.

 

[ToddC]

The question here is there one or two cars involved. I think it was one. If it is one the insure should pay the claim to the owner of the vehicle and then go after the driver should they choose.

So here is my question to that... if the driver is a permissive user would he not also be an insured under the policy? Answer is yes. So as an insured the liability portion of the carriers policy should extend him liability coverage when he's legally liable for damage to a vehicle. In this case the vehicle's carrier is stating that he's legally liable for the damage to the vehicle he was diving. So the carrier would need to protect the driver from themselves.

I'll go one step further as I'm betting someone is going to throw out there that you "can't be legally liable to yourself". This would not apply but lets say it did... then the carrier _can't_ seek recovery from the driver as he's... not legally liable for the damages.

 

[djs]

Seems the OP is not coming back, so we may never know.....

I still think there is 2 cars involved, but if not..... then I'm just totally baffled and confused by this whole scenario, which is why I think there are 2 cars involved.

Dan

 

[xrac]

Seems the OP is not coming back, so we may never know.....

I still think there is 2 cars involved, but if not..... then I'm just totally baffled and confused by this whole scenario, which is why I think there are 2 cars involved.

Dan

Maybe we should do a one car or two car poll.

 

[CKSINSURANCE]

Agreed with INSUREGEEK, Permissive driver is only additional insured on liability part of the policy. This is a first party loss, company is entitled to subrogation right against the at-fault driver.

My question is that is it a waiver of subrogation endorsement available for PAP?

 

[VolAgent]

Agreed with INSUREGEEK, Permissive driver is only additional insured on liability part of the policy. This is a first party loss, company is entitled to subrogation right against the at-fault driver.

My question is that is it a waiver of subrogation endorsement available for PAP?

So, I went and read my policy, this is in Tennessee. It says that the carrier will pay for direct and accidental loss to my insured auto from a collision with another object or by upset of that auto or trailer.

No where does it discuss driver, just the vehicle. I would say rolling it constitutes upset.

 

[CKSINSURANCE]

So, I went and read my policy, this is in Tennessee. It says that the carrier will pay for direct and accidental loss to my insured auto from a collision with another object or by upset of that auto or trailer.

No where does it discuss driver, just the vehicle. I would say rolling it constitutes upset.

yes you should be right and this is should be considered as covered under collision.

 

[ToddC]

Agreed with INSUREGEEK, Permissive driver is only additional insured on liability part of the policy. This is a first party loss, company is entitled to subrogation right against the at-fault driver.

But I'll ask again... would a permissive user not be an insured under the liability portion of that same policy? Answer is yes. As such, that policy would need to provide him liability coverage (under that same policy). This would mean that the same carrier would need to defend the driver against... themselves.

So, no they are not entitled to subrogation against the driver of their own insured vehicle.

 

[CKSINSURANCE]

But I'll ask again... would a permissive user not be an insured under the liability portion of that same policy? Answer is yes. As such, that policy would need to provide him liability coverage (under that same policy). This would mean that the same carrier would need to defend the driver against... themselves.

So, no they are not entitled to subrogation against the driver of their own insured vehicle.

I understand where you are coming from. but there usually is an exclusion under liability part of the policy to exclude liability for property damage to any property rented to or in the charge of the insured person. This car is a property in the charge of the insured person because it's driven by this insured person.

I wish some one with adjuster experience would come out and shed sone light on this interesting issue.