Got Dui, Need Sr22 to Reinstate License, Can I Use Policies from Two Different Companies to Avoid Re

mctator

New Member
1
Here's my thoughts. I don't own a car and im eligible for reinstatement if i get my sr22. My plan is to buy a car, get a policy for 1 year, then get sr22 from another company after I have my first policy so they won't raise my rates/drop me till the next year. thoughts?
 
You are making it way to expensive and far to complicated.

All you need is a non-owners policy with an SR-22 attached. They are pretty inexpensive.

What you are proposing won't work anyway. Any company is going to pull your DMV report and see you need an SR-22. Realize, there is NO rate factor for needing an SR-22 (except maybe a $20 - $50 fee to issue it). It, by itself, does not make your rates change. What makes your rates change is whatever caused you needing an SR-22 in the first place.

So, if you get 2 policies, you'll end up paying twice AND if either policy lapses, you'll probably get your licensed suspended again, even if the other policy is in place.

Seriously, talk to a local agent near you. Many can issue a non-owners policy (i.e., no car) and issue the SR-22 so you can get your license reinstated. Agents do this all the time.

Not all companies will write a policy if you need an SR-22, so you might have to check with a few agents.

Dan
 
there is NO rate factor for needing an SR-22 (except maybe a $20 - $50 fee to issue it). Dan

That's true with most companies, but not all of them. some companies will drop a driver down to a lower rating tier just for the simple fact of needing an SR22.

But other than that nit picky point, your advice is spot on.

I have seen a few occasions where it made sense for a driver to carry a separate non-owners policy just to satisfy the SR22 requirement. but it is very rare.

the only time I've seen it come out beneficial is when the driver had insurance already, had it bundled with homeowners, and was still flying under the radar (meaning the current auto insurer hadn't yet discovered the DUI).

other than that, it's almost always better to just have one policy.
 
Last edited:
That's true with most companies, but not all of them. some companies will drop a driver down to a lower rating tier just for the simple fact of needing an SR22.

But other than that nit picky point, your advice is spot on.

I have seen a few occasions where it made sense for a driver to carry a separate non-owners policy just to satisfy the SR22 requirement. but it is very rare.

the only time I've seen it come out beneficial is when the driver had insurance already, had it bundled with homeowners, and was still flying under the radar (meaning the current auto insurer hadn't yet discovered the DUI).

other than that, it's almost always better to just have one policy.

This is me I have USAA bundled with homeowners. I'm gonna get a second nonowner policy just to get my license back and not have to report to USAA.
 
That's true with most companies, but not all of them. some companies will drop a driver down to a lower rating tier just for the simple fact of needing an SR22.

But other than that nit picky point, your advice is spot on.

I have seen a few occasions where it made sense for a driver to carry a separate non-owners policy just to satisfy the SR22 requirement. but it is very rare.

the only time I've seen it come out beneficial is when the driver had insurance already, had it bundled with homeowners, and was still flying under the radar (meaning the current auto insurer hadn't yet discovered the DUI).

other than that, it's almost always better to just have one policy.

When the primary insurance discovers the dui and drops you would that trigger a new license suspension even with a second policy non owner in effect?
 
Here's my thoughts. I don't own a car and im eligible for reinstatement if i get my sr22. My plan is to buy a car, get a policy for 1 year, then get sr22 from another company after I have my first policy so they won't raise my rates/drop me till the next year. thoughts?


Wouldn't it have made more sense to not endanger the lives of innocent people.....by not driving drunk?:policeman:

You sound like you think you're a victim. You're lucky there weren't any!
 
Wouldn't it have made more sense to not endanger the lives of innocent people.....by not driving drunk?:policeman:

You sound like you think you're a victim. You're lucky there weren't any!

I think the tator has left the building. only one post back in March... I just now noticed that this thread is a re-heated leftover.
 
Back
Top