I have a 17 year old son who was arrested for driving without a license in Hawaii. He was driving his girlfriend's parents car. While driving he hit the car in front of him, which cause that car to hit the car in front of them. He totaled the car he was driving, and damaged the two cars in front of him. One of the two cars was a rental. The insurance company for the rental want us to pay the damages.

Who is responsible: the owner of the car or the driver? If the driver is a minor are the parents responsible. We did not allow him to drive the car. Hawaii has no fault insurance does this pay into the picture? Our insurance does not cover him, and my husband and I were not involved nor were our vehicles so our insurance does not cover.

Your son is responsible and they can come after you since he is a minor.

Yes, the driver is liable, and the parents of the minor are responsible even if the parents were not aware of it. On top of this, now they can also sue the car insurance company that he was driving.
This is serious, you need a good attorney.

Got to disagree with the answers above. While technically, both the driver and the owner are liable, it is the owners insurance company that will end up paying, and also provide a defense to both the driver and the owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Your son is responsible and they can come after you since he is a minor.

---

What is the basis for this statement?

He was driving the driver is responsible for wrecking and often they can come after the parents if the minor does not pay up. If the insurance company will pay that is fine but ultimately IF the insurance company will not cover him he is responsible and in many states being a minor his parents could be responsible in the end.

There are actually two questions here 1) Who is legally responsible and 2) who is financially responsible.

Legally the driver in the rear is responsible for the accident. IF the car owner had uninsured motorist coverage, then they are financially responsible for damages. If they do not, then their liability is limited. As a minor, you as his parents are responsible for for him.

So, the other drivers can sue you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Legally the driver in the rear is responsible for the accident. .

---

Usually, but not always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

IF the car owner had uninsured motorist coverage, then they are financially responsible for damages.

---

I don't know which owner you are referring to, but based on what I read above, I don't see where uninsured motorist coverage would come into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

If they do not, then their liability is limited. As a minor, you as his parents are responsible for for him.

---

Liability is never "limited" in these cases. What is limited is insurance coverage. In cases with limited insurance coverage, attorneys will usually only go after the policy because (1) it is easy; and (2) if someone had the asset level to justify going after same, they would have been adequately insured in the first instance.

Quote:

---

I don't know which owner you are referring to, but based on what I read above, I don't see where uninsured motorist coverage would come into play

---

The OP's son was driving his girlfriends parents vehicle, that's where uninsured motorist coverage would come in. If they don't have uninsured motorist coverage then the OP's son will he responsible for the damages, as he's a minor his parents may be sued in lieu of him.

I am by trade an insurance underwriter, Scott Gem and NoHelp are right on the money with this one.

Number One: When you buy auto insurance, you are insuring a car, not a particular driver. The insurance on the car will cover anyone driving it, aside from some very rare circumstances that don't apply here.

Number two: Uninsured motorist coverage has nothing to do with what you referenced above. UM and SUM coverage is insurance that you carry to allow you to recover if YOU are struck by a driver that is either uninsured, or has inadequate insurance coverage. You are not allowed to carry more SUM coverage then your own liability limits because the legislature doesn't want people out there carrying minimum liability policys (providing minimum protection to someone they may hit) while carrying maximum SUM coverage (providing maximum coverage to them).

The only way that uninsured motorist coverage would play into this situation is if the vehicle the OP's son was driving had no insurance. In which case the people he hit would be able to go after THEIR OWN uninsured motorist coverage from their own respective carriers.\


**** rude comments deleted out

Maybe in the states, but not in Canada, and I would guess that insurance policies aren't that different in the states.

Bottom line, he is at fault for this accident, therefore he will have to pay. If the owner of the vehicle's insurance agrees to pay for the damages to the other two vehicles then he would only be responsible for the deductible. If the insurance company refuses to pay, then the other two drivers can sue for the damage incurred. If they sue then his parents may be responsible for the amount as he is a minor.

Quote:

---

Number One: When you buy auto insurance, you are insuring a car, not a particular driver. The insurance on the car will cover anyone driving it, aside from some very rare circumstances that don't apply here.

---

So, when you buy insurance you don't have to list the drivers, of course you do, why do you think that is? There is an allowance for drivers not insured under your policy, but it is to the discretion of the insurance company whether they pay for damages incurred if such a driver is at fault in a collision.

Insurance companies do not like teens driving a vehicle for which they are not specifically insured, especially teens without a valid license,it is within their right to deny a claim, especially if they can prove that this specific driver operates the vehicle more than 1% of the time. That's the allowance for other drivers, once again, at least in Canada. They are not reaping the premium from that driver, a teen, so why should they pay? The girlfriends parents never should have let him drive their vehicle.

I am not currently working in the insurance industry, I took time off to raise my kids, but I know what I'm talking about my dear, so don't assume.

Thank you. :)

Altenweg,
In my state you can give any insured driver permission to drive your vehicle and they are covered UNLESS they live with you then they aren't

Here in Canada a driver not insured under your policy can drive your vehicle 1% of the time. In other words, if I lend my van to a neighbor and he get's in an accident, then he's insured. If I lend it to him again and he get's into an accident, well, then the insurance company will most likely deny the claim.

Many insurance companies will put an sef 28 and 8a on a policy stating specific people who are not allowed to drive the insured vehicle. You can break the rule, but if you do the deductible is usually around $10,000, as stated on the document, or more. That dissuades many people from allowing that specific person to drive.

Insurance companies frown on having a young uninsured motorist driving a vehicle, the fact that he did not have a valid license will play in to this case as well.

Once again, Canadian insurance law, not US, so I could be wrong in this specific case. I do however think that the OP's son will be held responsible in this case as he is responsible for the collision that occurred and he is not licensed to drive. Two big wammies on his side.

Quote:

---

I have said this a million times, but I'll say it again. This is the LAW FORUM. This isn't a place to come and "take a guess" or give an unsupported opinion. People come here for information that they will in many cases use to make very important decisions. I think that if you are going to post on this particular forum, you should at least make an effort to be accurate.

---

The OP's son may not have to be listed as a driver on the insured vehicle, I stated that as well, but the fact that he broke the law by driving without a valid license gives the insurance company some leeway in deciding whether they pay, if that's not the case in the US then I apologize. Or are you allowed to drive without a license in the US, if so, why was he arrested for it?

Either way, if the insurance company does pay he'll be responsible for the deductible, as he is at fault for this accident, if he can't pay his parents will because he's a minor.

As for the original question, the OP asked if their insurance company is responsible, no, it is not. The vehicle owners insurance company is the one that will be responsible, if they refuse to pay (and yes, they can refuse) then the driver of the vehicle is responsible, not the owner of the vehicle.

Sideoutshu, if you cannot refrain from being rude then please refrain from posting. I have dealt with enough rudeness from you, read my signature and know that I practice what I preach. Tone it down, if you are correct and I am not then I will apologize, do not demean my expertise in the insurance industry, do not talk down to me, I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, but when someone puts me down, like you did, I will not tolerate it. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

You might also want to consider that 4 people that responed to this question think that the OP's son will be made to pay, that is based on whether or not the insurance denies the claim. If the insurance pays the claim then he will at least be responsible for the deductible, or are you saying he isn't responsible for anything?

Good luck.

---

Well then a lot of people are probably wrong. Which underscores my point to a greater extent.

My impression was that the OP's concern was with being sued and my responses were primarily geared toward the "you are going to lose your home" responses. The forgoing lends itself to a discussion of a bodily injury case, not a property damage case. If you read my initial post, I was explaining what the practical implications of their coverage situation are.

Techinically, the son would be a named defendant in a lawsuit and technically he woulb be responsible for a verdict that went above and beyond the coverage ont eh owner's vehicle. What happens in the real world in 99.9% of circumstances however, is that the son won't pay a dime.

The owner's insurance carrier will assign counsel to defend both the owner and the driver under the owner's policy. A settlement will be negoitated within the confines of the policy (ie: owners insurer pays for everything). If a settlement can not be reached and the case goes to trail, the plaintiff's attorney will send a "bad faith letter" to the owner's insurance carrier stating that they are willing to settle the case for the policy limit, and that the insurer's failure to settle the case within said limits is unnecessarily exposing their insured to personal liability.

Once that letter is sent, the insurance company is now potentially liable to the OP's son and the owner for any amount over the policy limits as they could have settled the case without exposing them to personal liability (don't forget, an insurer's primary duty is SUPPOSED to be protection of the insured).

The other practical explanation is that you can't get blood from a stone. People with low policy limits don't have assets worth going after. Rich people have things like umbrella policies that ensure they will never incur personal liability.

First a mea culpa. I don't know what I was thinking, but side is right about uninsured motorist coverage. It is to protect you if your vehicle is damaged by an uninsured motorist. At least in NYS.

And yes, I should have said the driver in the rear is usually responsible. Assuming the driver in the rear was at fault the car owner's insurance would have to pay up to the limits of the liability coverage (which is what I meant).

If there are more damages beyond that, you would be responsible as the parent of a minor.

And there are many unknow other issues, there are many policies that does not insurance anyone but the listed drivers, these polices are more and more popular, since often they are less costly than some others.

In fact I had one of those for years, I also have seen policies that would cover others but not those under a certain age.

So we don't know if they will pay or not at this point. But assuming they do that does not take the legal liability from the driver, for many things, including the deductables from the car they were driving,

What if the owner of the car doesn't have insurance. Does the owner of the car have any responsibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aquinolisa

What if the owner of the car doesn't have insurance. Does the owner of the car have any responsibility?

---

That's where uninsured motorist coverage would come in to play.

Is the owner responsible? Depends, did they give your son persmission to drive the vehicle, did they know that he isn't licensed?

Big if's, but it is illegal to operate a vehicle without valid insurance, so they may be held accountable in some way. Once again, at least in Canada, and I find it very hard to believe that our insurance laws are that different from yours.

I still think it's best to consult an attorney, cover all your bases.

Can the people who he hit insurance companies, go after the parents?