Liability Question for P&C Agents

[arnguy]

If someone is involved in an at-fault accident while driving a vehicle owned by another individual, and with the permission of the owner, can the owner be held liable for over and beyond that which is covered by the owner's insurance? This assumes the owner carries full insurance on the vehicle and it is in Pennsylvania. I would assume that the driver of the vehicle would still be liable for any excess damages. Is that correct? Your replies will be appreciated.

 

[joshb]

If someone is involved in an at-fault accident while driving a vehicle owned by another individual, and with the permission of the owner, can the owner be held liable for over and beyond that which is covered by the owner's insurance? This assumes the owner carries full insurance on the vehicle and it is in Pennsylvania. I would assume that the driver of the vehicle would still be liable for any excess damages. Is that correct? Your replies will be appreciated.

Both can be held liable. The owner of the vehicle will almost always be listed in the lawsuit. The lawyer will go after anything and everyone they can.

 

[NCAgent]

If I recall, at least in some other states, the owner's insurance is used up first but the driver's insurance can be used in excess. However, yes, I believe the owner can be held in excess due to vicarious liability. They let the driver have access to the car and therefore are responsible for the accidents they cause.

I'm not a claims adjuster though. Ask one of them.

 

[arnguy]

I am aware that one can bring a lawsuit for just about anything, even if it's frivolous, but the question remains as to whether the owner can be held liable when the driver was not acting in the capacity of an agent for the owner. In my opinion I don't think an action against the owner would prevail, but that's just my opinion.

 

[djs]

Depends. Ignoring that anyone can get sued for a moment, there are some times when the owner may truly be at fault.

If the car had bad brakes and the owner didn't mention this to the driver and improper braking contributed to the accident, then yes, I can see the owner having some liability.

If the car had bad tires and hydroplaned a lot, it was raining and hydroplaning contributed to the accident, then yes, I can see the owner having some liability.

If the car was in good order, the usage was incidental, it was the operation of the car, not the car itself, that caused the accident, then its harder to see how the owner would actually be liable (ignoring issues with minor drivers, etc).

Then there is Toyota, who as a manufacturer, was held liable for some accidents. Ford was held liable for gas tank explosions (for those who remember Pintos), etc. Strange things happen.

I am not a lawyer, never played one on TV. I did drive by a lawyers office once though. This is not legal advice, just common sense.

Dan

 

[arnguy]

Dan, your answer, although not a legal opinion sounds the most plausible. I believe that it was Charles Dickens who said that "The law is an ass."

 

[FL P&C Broker]

Happened to one on my good friends where our other friend was driving his vechicle and killed somebody. The owner was held liable and they used the limits on both policies.

 

[Sales71]

Happened to one on my good friends where our other friend was driving his vechicle and killed somebody. The owner was held liable and they used the limits on both policies.

The owner could be liable since he gave the car to use for his friend. He could have said no and that would be it.

 

[CLee]

In NC, the liability on the vehicle is primary, once those limits are used up the claimant can file a claim on the operator's insurance (if they have any). A good adjuster is going to have the claimant sign a release once the vehicle owner's policy has paid, and once that release is signed and the payment is accepted I don't believe the claimant can come after the vehicle owner for anything else. (I'm just an agent not an adjuster but we have a similar claim open for one of our clients and that's how the 2 carriers have explained it to me. Don't know the final outcome yet as it's not been settled)