My son just got his license, doesn't live with me, we have 50/50 custody with his father, and he's covered under his father's insurance and we live in MN. If he comes to visit and drives my car, does he need to be put on my insurance? On average, he may drive my car once every 2 months... Thanks!
Son Doesn't Live with Me, Does He Need to Be Under My Insurance to Drive?
- Thread starter mkirby
- Start date
- 11,997
To some degree it depends on how frequently he's driving. If he's living with you and has regular use and access to the vehicle then he needs to be on the policy. If he's just visiting every now and again and infrequently uses the car, then probably not. In the event of a claim it would raise some flags and they'd want to look into it, but provided it really and truly is an infrequent occurence you're fine.
G
Guest
Guest
THIS is WRONG.
if its an even 50/50 split, he must be listed on at least one of the policies......
If he is listed on your EX's policy then he is covered under your policy with permissive use.
- 1,016
Since the OP stated it was her car, there would be no reason for her to have that coverage. Named op policies don't cover owned vehicles so it would be pointless for her to have it.
MGDaddy
New Member
I agree with BlockO.
just my $.02
just my $.02
BlockO,
I think what he is saying instead is that there are some policies (particularly with some non-standard carriers) that have the policy language written saying that driver's named on the policy are the only ones allowed. Rather, the client might have to use the extended non-owned endorsement on there since the car could be viewed as accessible regularly (not meaning that it is USED but the chance of using it is always there.) Some non-standards could be a pain on that, though it's doubtful.
Named-only operators is not a benefit, so some companies use it as a way of limiting risk on a high-risk policy, so that is why you could see it on non-standard policies. I don't have any carriers that do it but I've heard about it from other agents.
I think what he is saying instead is that there are some policies (particularly with some non-standard carriers) that have the policy language written saying that driver's named on the policy are the only ones allowed. Rather, the client might have to use the extended non-owned endorsement on there since the car could be viewed as accessible regularly (not meaning that it is USED but the chance of using it is always there.) Some non-standards could be a pain on that, though it's doubtful.
Named-only operators is not a benefit, so some companies use it as a way of limiting risk on a high-risk policy, so that is why you could see it on non-standard policies. I don't have any carriers that do it but I've heard about it from other agents.
- 1,016
As far as a named operator policies (which is what I assume ins4u2 meant): Plenty of non-standard companies sell these. But I have yet to see one that covers an OWNED vehicle. And why would they? The carrier would be assuming the full risk for half the premium.
Now there are other types of policies called "financial responsibility bond" and "broad form named driver" policies. Some of those cover owned vehicles, some don't, depending on the carrier (but a vehicle owner would be a fool to have this coverage). If these policies are what ins4u was referring to, then it's possible. I don't know what state the OP is in, but those policies are very rare. Of the 6 states I'm in, Ohio is the only one that has them and I'm not aware of any other state that does.
Now there are other types of policies called "financial responsibility bond" and "broad form named driver" policies. Some of those cover owned vehicles, some don't, depending on the carrier (but a vehicle owner would be a fool to have this coverage). If these policies are what ins4u was referring to, then it's possible. I don't know what state the OP is in, but those policies are very rare. Of the 6 states I'm in, Ohio is the only one that has them and I'm not aware of any other state that does.
U r correct blocko. 99% of the time, moms insurance wld be primary when she gives permission to drive. (Aslong as not a "resident" or drive the vehicle the majority of the time)
I am out of texas, and have learned not to make asumptions around these parts.
I had an insured who let a coworker borrow his truck during lunch break. Has an accident, coworkers carrier (non-standard) denies claim- policy provided coverage for listed vehicles only, rentals or borrowed vehicles where excluded.
Like i said, that crappy coverage is out there. I have no clue if those policies are even allowed in MN, but id recommend mom ask both agents (hers and kids father) to make sure kids liab & her prop is covered.
I am out of texas, and have learned not to make asumptions around these parts.
I had an insured who let a coworker borrow his truck during lunch break. Has an accident, coworkers carrier (non-standard) denies claim- policy provided coverage for listed vehicles only, rentals or borrowed vehicles where excluded.
Like i said, that crappy coverage is out there. I have no clue if those policies are even allowed in MN, but id recommend mom ask both agents (hers and kids father) to make sure kids liab & her prop is covered.
