A person I know was with his girlfriend and two other friends. We'll call him "Joe". They wrecked and he was hurt, nothing seriously. He decided to sue the insurance company. Insurance company rejected because the vehicle owner's insurance was expired according to the insurance company. The owner had missed the "due by" date but had made payment via the internet on a Friday afternoon(before the date the cancellation notice gave for complete cancellation), wreck was on Saturday. Their insurance company is saying that since it was paid Friday afternoon, it didn't go into effect until Monday.

Joe was living with a relative at the time of the wreck. The relative was not involved in the wreck, nor was the relative's vehicle.

Joe's lawyer advised him that he could file a claim against the relative's insurance, under the "uninsured motorist" provision.

Joe had only been living with the relative for a few months, if that, and was not on the insurance policy.

The relative's insurance paid off, meanwhile Joe still has a lawsuit against the owner's insurance company and since the vehicle was financed, the bank carried insurance on it, they are suing that insurance company as well.

I always understood uninsured motorist policy to cover your vehicle if you were in an accident and the other party had no insurance.

I have a feeling that someone pulled something slick.

Someone with some expertise please share your thoughts here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farmgirlmo

A person I know was with his girlfriend and two other friends. We'll call him "Joe". They wrecked and he was hurt, nothing seriously. He decided to sue the insurance company. Insurance company rejected because the vehicle owner's insurance was expired according to the insurance company. The owner had missed the "due by" date but had made payment via the internet on a Friday afternoon(before the date the cancellation notice gave for complete cancellation), wreck was on Saturday. Their insurance company is saying that since it was paid Friday afternoon, it didn't go into effect until Monday.

Joe was living with a relative at the time of the wreck. The relative was not involved in the wreck, nor was the relative's vehicle.

Joe's lawyer advised him that he could file a claim against the relative's insurance, under the "uninsured motorist" provision.

Joe had only been living with the relative for a few months, if that, and was not on the insurance policy.

The relative's insurance paid off, meanwhile Joe still has a lawsuit against the owner's insurance company and since the vehicle was financed, the bank carried insurance on it, they are suing that insurance company as well.

I always understood uninsured motorist policy to cover your vehicle if you were in an accident and the other party had no insurance.

I have a feeling that someone pulled something slick.

Someone with some expertise please share your thoughts here.

---

I'm a liability investigator in NYS - I don't understand who you think is pulling off something "slick."

Addressing NYS - if you default on an insurance payment the company has the right to invoke a three-day (or something similar) rule concerning reinstatement. For example, you insurance expires on Monday, you make the payment on Tuesday, they have every right to make certain that your payment clears before you are reinstated - which could very well be Thursday or Friday.

The company also has the right to refuse the payment on the grounds of unsuitable insured - slow or no pay, not in accordance with payment requirements.

I see people all the time who are driving uninsured, who skipped or made a late payment, then paid, then think their insurance is somehow automatically back in effect.

In NYS the State has a fund for people injured in an uninsured vehicle but that has nothing to do with the vehicle's owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I'm a liability investigator in NYS - I don't understand who you think is pulling off something "slick."

Addressing NYS - if you default on an insurance payment the company has the right to invoke a three-day (or something similar) rule concerning reinstatement. For example, you insurance expires on Monday, you make the payment on Tuesday, they have every right to make certain that your payment clears before you are reinstated - which could very well be Thursday or Friday.

The company also has the right to refuse the payment on the grounds of unsuitable insured - slow or no pay, not in accordance with payment requirements.

I see people all the time who are driving uninsured, who skipped or made a late payment, then paid, then think their insurance is somehow automatically back in effect.

In NYS the State has a fund for people injured in an uninsured vehicle but that has nothing to do with the vehicle's owner.

---

I understand that the owner's insurance company has the right to refuse payment, etc, etc. This isn't about the ownder's insurance company or them refusing to pay.

I am trying to understand the "uninsured motorist" coverage and how it works.

What I am talking about is how did "Joe" file a claim against the relative's uninsured motorist coverage when the relative was not in the wreck, the relative insured vehicle was not in the wreck, and "Joe" was no insured under the relative's policy.

The whole filing against the relative's insurance is what I was referring to as someone pulling off something "slick". As I said, I am just wondering how this is possible to do. I have not said that they DID pull something slick, just that was the feeling I got from the whole ordeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farmgirlmo

I understand that the owner's insurance company has the right to refuse payment, etc, etc. This isn't about the ownder's insurance company or them refusing to pay.

I am trying to understand the "uninsured motorist" coverage and how it works.

What I am talking about is how did "Joe" file a claim against the relative's uninsured motorist coverage when the relative was not in the wreck, the relative insured vehicle was not in the wreck, and "Joe" was no insured under the relative's policy.

The whole filing against the relative's insurance is what I was referring to as someone pulling off something "slick". As I said, I am just wondering how this is possible to do. I have not said that they DID pull something slick, just that was the feeling I got from the whole ordeal.

---

I don't understand it either - uninsured motorist insurance covers a damaged/injured party for property damage and bodily injury caused by another motorist who does not carry liability insurance.

You hit me, you don't have insurance, my uninsured (and underinsured) coverage takes over.

I don't understand the scenario as the Attorney has presented it - but, again, I can only address NYS.

I'm as stumped as both of you. I don't have a clue how the attorney was able to get the relative's insurance to pay when Joe wasn't in the relative's car and the relative wasn't driving the wrecked car. That does seem to me to be on "slick" side. The only thing that could possible make sense is that Joe was under the relative's care while living with them and was covered by his homeowner's liability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I'm as stumped as both of you. I don't have a clue how the attorney was able to get the relative's insurance to pay when Joe wasn't in the relative's car and the relative wasn't driving the wrecked car. That does seem to me to be on "slick" side. The only thing that could possible make sense is that Joe was under the relative's care while living with them and was covered by his homeowner's liability.

---

Vehicular accidents are a specific exclusion under every policy I've every seen or investigated.

I'm not sure Attorney didn't mean the State's uninsured motorist pool -

Otherwise - no way.

No homeowner's insurance involved. It was the relative's automobile insurance that paid off. The relative was just letting "Joe" stay there temporarily. His fiancé and him was having some trouble, so he was staying with the relative until he could secure his own place. Joe was not a minor and an able-bodied adult, no issues, so was not under anyone's care.

I just know that when it came back that the vehicle owner's insurance company was denying the claim, his lawyer told him that if he had something proving that he lived at the relative's residence, then he could file a claim against the relative's insurance company. He received one letter there and received it the day before the accident.

His lawyer is known as the "go to lawyer" as he'll always find a way to make it happen and get you a settlement of some sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Vehicular accidents are a specific exclusion under every policy I've every seen or investigated.

I'm not sure Attorney didn't mean the State's uninsured motorist pool -

Otherwise - no way.

---

I'm not sure what the "state's uninsured motorist pool" is, but I do know that the check came from the insurance company. When the relative went to renew their insurance last week, the agent pulled the claim up in the computer system. Told the relative that they couldn't tell what the actual settlement was for, as it was in process, but it was processed the next day. Relative is calling insurance agent today to find out how much they settled for, not sure why. Maybe just curiousity.

I suspect, that the relative's policy paid off rather than go to court. Sometimes its cheaper to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farmgirlmo

I'm not sure what the "state's uninsured motorist pool" is, but I do know that the check came from the insurance company. When the relative went to renew their insurance last week, the agent pulled the claim up in the computer system. Told the relative that they couldn't tell what the actual settlement was for, as it was in process, but it was processed the next day. Relative is calling insurance agent today to find out how much they settled for, not sure why. Maybe just curiousity.

---

I'd be curious to know if the company did, in fact, reinstate the policy retroactively or there is some sort of "uninsured motorist" coverage which paid it.

Someone else is eventually going to ask the same question and I'd like to know the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I'd be curious to know if the company did, in fact, reinstate the policy retroactively or there is some sort of "uninsured motorist" coverage which paid it.

Someone else is eventually going to ask the same question and I'd like to know the answer.

---

Just so that you are clear(too many people and too many insurance comapanies involved)... the owner of the vehicle in the accident is the case where the insurance company is denying based on not being paid(paid on Friday afternoon, wreck on Saturday, insurance company says insurance not in effect until Monday)

Joe's relative's insurance company is the one that claim was filed on under the "uninsured motorist" and has been paid.

The lawsuit against the vehicle owner's insurance company is ongoing. I will post back the outcome.