[The J-Man]

Car insurance in the US is one of our many freedoms that most countries do not enjoy. A 16 year old can be insured on any car, but it might cost a lot. Many young people with nice cars are not insured on the cars, their parents are.

Here is an example of how many get cheap rates...
Divorced Parents:
Parent 1; kid lives with
Parent 2; kid does not live with
Parent 2; insures the car for cheap

Kid can then drive the car legally, although some will argue this.

[ABQ325i]

Being a Brit living in the US let me answer. Basically what J-Man wrote.

In the UK you insure the driver
In the US you insure the car

Back when I lived in England you insured yourself as the owner of a vehicle and would add on other names if they would drive it, if they are not named then they can not drive it legally.

In the US you insure the car with a name of the primary driver and pretty much anyone can drive your car without having to be named.

[shockin330i]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Lots of children in the US who have a 'sense of entitlement' like they deserve a 60k car while in their teens. Parents are the ones to blame.

lol Seriously bro? To some people spending 60k on a car ain't shit.

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by ABQ325i

Being a Brit living in the US let me answer. Basically what J-Man wrote.

In the UK you insure the driver
In the US you insure the car

Back when I lived in England you insured yourself as the owner of a vehicle and would add on other names if they would drive it, if they are not named then they can not drive it legally.

In the US you insure the car with a name of the primary driver and pretty much anyone can drive your car without having to be named.

You're incorrect (kinda)... when you get insurance in the USA you're insuring the driver first, then the car.

If you're driving someone else's car, it will hit YOUR insurance first, (and if you don't have any, then the other persons)

[BTM]

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

You're incorrect (kinda)... when you get insurance in the USA you're insuring the driver first, then the car.

If you're driving someone else's car, it will hit YOUR insurance first, (and if you don't have any, then the other persons)

+1

Perhaps the car portion is just given more weight here, as I got drastically different rates car shopping earlier this year...like $600 every 6 mos for a new GTI and nearly $1k every 6 mos for an 06 Lotus Elise...

I got one for you, Freakizoid - explain to me PA's no fault insurance...

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by BTM

I got one for you, Freakizoid - explain to me PA's no fault insurance...

No fault insurance is a way to save some money on your premiums....to drastically over simplify it...it basically means you're electing to never sue someone for an accident. (outside of what's 'normal and reasonable'). i.e. you can't sue for emotional issues, for pain and suffering, yada yada yada.

To take it a step further down in simplicity....basically you can't recoup anything outside of damage to your car and medical bills. (so if you're a tennis player and someone smashes your hand, you can't sue for loss of livelihood).


Hopefully that explains it decently enough..

[ABQ325i]

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

You're incorrect (kinda)... when you get insurance in the USA you're insuring the driver first, then the car.

If you're driving someone else's car, it will hit YOUR insurance first, (and if you don't have any, then the other persons)

But you don't need insurance to drive someone else's car. In the UK you have to be named on the owners policy.

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by ABQ325i

But you don't need insurance to drive someone else's car. In the UK you have to be named on the owners policy.

good point, that's actually why I put the 'kinda' in my statement. Technically a random car can be uninsured, but it can be driven by someone with insurance.... thus it's not the car being insured, but the driver

[BTM]

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

No fault insurance is a way to save some money on your premiums....to drastically over simplify it...it basically means you're electing to never sue someone for an accident. (outside of what's 'normal and reasonable'). i.e. you can't sue for emotional issues, for pain and suffering, yada yada yada.

To take it a step further down in simplicity....basically you can't recoup anything outside of damage to your car and medical bills. (so if you're a tennis player and someone smashes your hand, you can't sue for loss of livelihood).


Hopefully that explains it decently enough..

I only ask because my sister got rear ended (har har har) by a PA driver with no-fault, her car was insured under a regular comprehensive IL policy. The check for the damage came right away, but she did go to the doctor the next day for some minor pain. Nothing serious, I think they gave her some pain killers to take if it got really bad but otherwise she was fine just a little sore. It was unbelievable how much of a PITA it was to get this bill settled. Apparently, the no-fault policy sent the bill to our insurance because we had comprehensive, which it of course denied since the other driver was "at fault" but with "no fault" insurance they claimed they were not responsible. I'm not even sure who eventually paid the bill.

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by BTM

I only ask because my sister got rear ended (har har har) by a PA driver with no-fault, her car was insured under a regular comprehensive IL policy. The check for the damage came right away, but she did go to the doctor the next day for some minor pain. Nothing serious, I think they gave her some pain killers to take if it got really bad but otherwise she was fine just a little sore. It was unbelievable how much of a PITA it was to get this bill settled. Apparently, the no-fault policy sent the bill to our insurance because we had comprehensive, which it of course denied since the other driver was "at fault" but with "no fault" insurance they claimed they were not responsible. I'm not even sure who eventually paid the bill.

rear ended, oooooooo.

But I'm not surprised it worked like that with out of state insurance, I can't even imagine how much of a PITA that would end up being. Although reading up on it, in PA you're defaulted to 'full-tort' i.e. 'at fault'.
Sounds like you were pretty much just given the stupid run-around by the other insurance trying to get out of paying it....especially with having out of state insurance.

Stuff like that is why I'm glad insurance companies are there...
But to the payout, that is the plus, payout is pretty much immediate.

[BTM]

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

But I'm not surprised it worked like that with out of state insurance, I can't even imagine how much of a PITA that would end up being. Although reading up on it, in PA you're defaulted to 'full-tort' i.e. 'at fault'.
Sounds like you were pretty much just given the stupid run-around by the other insurance trying to get out of paying it....especially with having out of state insurance.

Pretty much...if I'm not mistaken his insurance and our health insurance (not auto insurance) worked something out...something along the lines of them paying the bill and us paying the co-pay or something? IDK whatever. Don't get run into by a no-fault driver.

BTW - no fault isn't each person's insurance pays for their own? I think that was the line we were being fed by his insurance company, that they pay for him and we pay for us. I'm pretty sure our auto insurance went after them pretty quick for the damages, and the health bill got lost in the mix somewhere...

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by BTM

Pretty much...if I'm not mistaken his insurance and our health insurance (not auto insurance) worked something out...something along the lines of them paying the bill and us paying the co-pay or something? IDK whatever. Don't get run into by a no-fault driver.

BTW - no fault isn't each person's insurance pays for their own? I think that was the line we were being fed by his insurance company, that they pay for him and we pay for us. I'm pretty sure our auto insurance went after them pretty quick for the damages, and the health bill got lost in the mix somewhere...

after seeing your response post, I should have connected the dots and continued my explanation.... there's a difference between a no fault state, and no fault insurance. (although if you don't deal with it, it's a very, very blurry line)

No fault insurance typically refers to the difference between full-tort/limited-tort (in my experience). The blanket 'no-fault state' is what came into play likely in your sister's accident (assuming it occurred in PA). The general kickback for all medical bills in a no fault state is the victim's insurance covers it. However that's where the full-tort, limited tort comes into play and enters this mix. Full-tort allows you to go beyond just these limits.

As you were dealing with cross-state lines with insurance, my guess, after thinking about this more, your insurance probably end up being forced to pay the medical bills (again assuming this was in PA), as I'm betting the state laws, where the accident occurs is the trump card.

[BTM]

^^ yea it happened in Pittsburgh...that makes more sense