 |
Because I had credit difficulties,my mother bought me a vehicle-it is in her name.I am not a minor.As she is 77 and does not drive or have a license, I am listed as the sole driver on the insurance policy.If I get into an accident and get sued by the other party, who is ultimately responsible, my mother as vehicle owner, or I as the driver?I am in Massachusetts, if that matters... Thank you
The person who you injure"s insurance company (attorneys) would come after the company that insures the vehicle for the limits of the policy (I'm assuming it's a substantial injury.) Once that's exhausted they would come after whomever they could attempt to get money from. If you and/or your mother have money or assets I don't think they'd be picky about who they come after. You would have liability as the driver, and she would have some liability as the owner of the vehicle. Now a judge could rule that she doesn't have liability, for example, but I think it would take a ruling to make that determination. The other party isn't going to think, "hmm, I think the judge will rule that she has no liability, so we're not going to bother with her." They're going to try everything in the hopes of getting something.
In the end they can come after both of you. You as the driver if you caused the wreck, and her as the owner of the vechile
I can see how they could come after both of you, but in my opinion it doesn't make sense to go after your mother because she's not even insured to drive the car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmangileri
Whether it makes sense or not, that's the law - both driver and owner are sued. And, yes, if the accident is bad enough and the damages go over the policy limits you can both have judgments filed against you.
When I investigate an accident I talk to both the driver and the owner.
Well, that's why I was saying that I can see how both partied could be sued. It just seems really unfair that someone that had nothing to do with it could be sued. The mother isn't insured on the car and therefore doesn't drive it, which means she didn't hit this person. I was just saying that even though someone could sue the owner, it doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmangileri
If I am driving a car registered in your name and I run someone over, you are going to be sued. That's how it is - you are responsible for the custody and control of a vehicle which you own. If you don't bother to get insurance or be named on the policy, that is most definitely not the fault of the person who is injured by your vehicle.
My husband had a jointly-titled car that is currently out of State. I pay an insurance premium on it because if it's in an accident, the company will come after me/him.
Unfortunately this is not the "what makes sense" board - and the law doesn't always make sense.
But, again, if you are the owner of just about anything you are responsible for how it's used and who uses it. The injured person should not have to suffer because the owner didn't get insurance.
Whoa, calm down. Lol. I never said it was the fault of the person injured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmangileri
Who do you think they should claim against for their injuries if not the owner and operator of the vehicle?
I never said the operator shouldn't be sued. I would sue the operator- the one who actually did the damage before anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmangileri
You can't sue one party and see how that works out and then sue the other - in fact, that's not how it works.
You claim against the insurance policy. If that fails you sue all interested parties.
You're reading waaayyy too far into what I was saying. All I was saying- whether it's right or wrong is that it's unfair to sue someone who isn't involved. I personally wouldn't. And I wasn't literally saying that I would try to sue someone and if that didn't work I would sue someone else. If you look all the way up to the top where I first posted I stated "in my opinion..." I am not giving anyone actual legal advice. I was sharing my opinion.
Why? You want to be made whole... you sue the person most likely to achieve that end, and that means the person with the money. The injured party's argument is that, if the owner hadn't bought the car and provided it to the person operating it, the accident wouldn't have happened. Therefore, the owner is liable for the damage. This is why parents try to get off the title of cars that they buy for minor children as soon as they can. A kid straight out school doesn't have a lot of assets, but the parents can lose everything that they own if the kid gets in an accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by lmangileri
Thank you all for your responses. Much appreciated
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspssp
Have you given any thought to simply adding her name to the policy? I'd run that past the insurance agent, NOT the company.
She doesn't have a license
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspssp
Doesn't matter - that's why I suggested that you consult with the insurance agent.
If you are concealing the fact that she owns the car from the company and you are in an accident, your carrier can deny coverage.
I'd get this straightened out before you do something really terrible to your mother's finances.
I'm a little confused - you have credit difficulties so she bought you a car. After she purchased it, why wasn't it titled, registered, insured in your individual name - ?
What insurance company is going to insure an unlicensed driver? One of the first questions I was asked when getting a new policy was what my drivers license number was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmangileri
This is not a message board. Please stop treating it like one.
If you are recommending that the OP lie to his insurance company about ownership of the car you are suggesting that he commit a crime which could ultimately lead to him not having any insurance coverage at all. Not very sound legal advice.
>Thread Closed<
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM. |