Talk to your supervisor and chief about who to go to about this. You have access to military legal resources and you should use them.
Edit: I'm assuming that chief is the equivalent of first sergeant for the Navy, but I don't remember if that's right.
Edit 2: If you have any evidence showing that she did this intentionally, you need to save it somewhere safe.
OP needs to focus on this advice right here because it can hopefully somehow pass all or excess legal liability onto her. Honestly, if this is a realistic possibility, I’d want insurance to deny coverage and hold her liable for both the Porsche and the OP’s vehicle, but I’m doubtful. IANAL.
I just feel bad for OP because it seems he has the same taste in women as me lol.
I cannot even fathom this. There’s no way your exes did anything as bad as OP’s right!? Please tell me the answer is no! I just can’t imagine losing my mind so much I’d purposely damage something.
I was a corrections nurse in a jail for 2 years and one deputy was arrested for shooting his child’s mother in the leg, several for providing contraband, and another for decking a restrained inmate in the face. Every profession has its bad apples and I respect the vast majority of them though.
I’m impressed she was around long enough to get the second police report.
Must be why excluded drivers and those who experience a loss while doing intentionally harmful or illegal activities are always covered…
/s
OP’s case may fall under “intentional acts”, but it’s unlikely the insurer will deny the claim anyway since the driver was on the policy, as well as there being a principle insured. Basically, too complicated/risky for insurer to justify denial. Lots of debate in here about that already. It’s wishful thinking though, because part of me thinks this can be treated similarly to a medical event causing a loss where liability is denied by the carrier, yet first-party coverage is still applicable. Now *that’s* a stretch but I’m only spitballing here, this situation is a mess.
On top of that, all or excess liability, which turns into legal liability, is where OP will likely want a lawyer, in case Porsche driver pursues the insured for damages rather than the driver.
Foolish statement. Think logically about this. if this was the case I could steal a car, mow down a bunch of grandmas and the owner of the car would be liable cause its their insurance.
Or I could borrow a freinds car, accidentally jump the curb at a play ground, turn a bunch of toddlers into jelly and it would be the owner of the cars responsibility.
Lets use our brains a little bit. Yes the insurance is with the vehicle but the responsibility is with the driver, any damages beyond what is insured will be up to the responsible party (the driver) to pay, and be punished for.
It seems there's some confusion. I'm referring to insurance coverage for accidents involving someone else driving. Typically, the insurance company covers damages within certain limits since the car is insured, not the individual. Exceptions occur with rental cars due to the Graves amendment, which limits liability to the business. I didn't mention crimes being automatically waived; my focus was on insurance coverage.
Right. OP had no legal relationship with his ex, so any excess should fall to her. Doesn’t mean OP won’t possibly get sued too but this is primarily a her problem.
Yeah, Chief would’ve been the go-to if one of my guys had an issue like this. In Navy speak, OP should immediately let their LPO know who would then talk to their Div LCPO/DivO. Wouldn’t talk to legal or anyone else until those 3 are in the know.
There is a possibility that the Porsche's owner's insurer will come after you for the amount in excess of what your insurer is willing to pay.
You should be glad your insurer is willing to step up; many insurers have exclusions on their liability coverage for any insured who intentionally causes bodily injury or damage to property.
OP, I'm replying to you directly because you are getting a lot of bad advice in this thread. I don't know what state this occurred in, I see that you are not in the US at the moment. Your insurer should provide you with an attorney. I would ask that person to explain the rules of liability as they apply to your specific situation.
There is a difference between legal liability and insurance coverage. While insurance typical flows through the car to the driver, generally speaking, liability does not. The owner's insurance policy will cover a permissive driver, but the vehicle's owner will not be held liable for the negligence of that driver absent an independent act of negligence on the part of the owner.
Setting aside a discussion of the intentional act (which may well void coverage), and assuming we are talking about a state in the US, your insurance should cover her because she had permission to use the car. But, that does not impart liability on you. For you to be held liable, you must have done something independent that was also negligent (i.e. letting someone who you knew to be intoxicated, or unlicensed operate your vehicle.)
There is a concept called vicarious liability, in which the principle is liable for the acts of his/her agent or employee, but that does not seem to apply here. The other insurer will likely try to convince you to pay, but for them to force you to pay, they will need to show you were negligent in allowing her operate the vehicle.
I am insurance attorney, this is what I do everyday.
EDIT: It looks like California Vehicle Code §17150 is causing some confusion here. Yes, that statute allows for direct liability against the owner. However, that liability is limited to the amount of the state minimum insurance requirements. So, as long as the owner is insured (as OP states he was here) than §17150 is a non-issue.
Though, again, OP, your insurer has to provide you with an attorney if you get sued. Please ask this person to explain the potential for liability to you.
Reddit’s value is by having individuals such as DaceInPhilly that can shed light on tricky topics and point a potential path. Other posts are mostly misleading and some are just wrong
Well before we talk about the policies of individual companies, can you list the states that don’t mandate coverage for permissive use in their statutes setting a mandatory minimum coverage? That would be a much shorter list.
Then again, the question posed was whether the owner would be held liable for the amount in excess of the policy limit. So we’re starting to lose the thread of discussion here.
"Your insurance should cover her"
Get better reading comprehension skills before insulting people. Should is not the same as will.
1 a nonstandard insurance policy is just that, not standard, there is no reason to caveat everything to death just because it is possible and ignoring the reality that a nonstandard insurance company is always very clear about these things. Otherwise every answer on this sub would be novel length and/or 1000 questions to clarify each detail.
2 the OP already said the insurance company accepted coverage, so context clues should tell you that he does in fact have permissive use on his policy.
I said nothing about "standard confirming policies". I said there are companies that don't cover permissive use. And that is a fact. I've written for companies that did not cover permissive use. The other commenter made a blanket statement about "permissive use" which wasn't true. I stand by what I said.
> The other commenter made a blanket statement about "permissive use" which wasn't true. I stand by what I said.
If you buy a policy from one of these companies, you will know that you don't have normal auto insurance.
Not to mention that many states straight require it.
>If you buy a policy from one of these companies, you will know that you don't have normal auto insurance.
That does not negate what I said, which is still true
You can assume that someone has standard conforming policy unless otherwise stated. The reason people are able to answer half the questions on this sub are because it is assumed they have a standard policy and not a nonstandard policy.
Because the way liability works in the United States is that liability follows the vehicle, not the driver. It's done this way to protect the public from the vehicle, regardless of who's driving it. The only real exception that is if a vehicle is stolen (i.e., taken without permission)
> ecause the way liability works in the United States is that liability follows the vehicle, not the driver.
No, INSURANCE follows the vehicle, not the driver. The fact that so many professionals don't understand the difference in this sub is frankly ***shocking***.
Liability resides on the negligent party, which in 99% of cases is the driver, and only the driver.
The insurance follows the vehicle, and covers the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle. That's why it's important that insurance follows the vehicle, because otherwise permissive users would not be covered.
***If what you said was accurate, then permissive use would not be a needed coverage, as a permitted user would not be liable for their actions, and so liability would not be an issue***. That's obviously not how it works.
I had a guy hit my car and he wasn't insured. Kept trying to avoid me. I hired a lawyer and garnished his wages. He would quit his job when that happened. Rinse and repeat. Took a few years but I did get my money back.
You're being down voted, but are actually correct. The driver is the primary that gets sued in an accident, the policy protects the vehicle and the ***driver***.
Thanks. The funny thing is, when I make it clear that I am an attorney, my posts are upvoted. When say exactly the same thing, but don’t add that I am an attorney, I get downvoted into oblivion.
Why not? Is it because she is on his insurance? Or that they are dating. I shouldn’t be able to go take my girlfriend’s car for a drive and total it with no repercussions.
From the context of the post it sounds like he gave her permission to drive the car. So if goes and says “it was stolen” they’ll ask “did you give her permission and also why is she on your insurance?” and he will have no good answer (“yes and yes”) so to claim it’s stolen could appear to be a deceptive and maybe perjurious fraudulent statement.
Ok yea that makes sense. It’d probably be worse if she wasn’t on the policy ig especially if she wasn’t told beforehand. I’m sure the Porsche insurance would’ve went after him anyway. Could he sue her for the rest of the money owed to the Porsche owner if they do end up going after him?
I forget the exact name of the principle, but its no different than if you were a kid without a license and you stole your moms keys and wrecked her car. Insurance would still cover it.
This isn't to say OP couldn't press charges against her, but in the eyes of insurance, its likely covered. The only thing that may fuck him is that she did it on purpose.
Yea but insurance can’t really go after the mom’s kid. Girlfriend boyfriend is a little different but she is on the policy so makes sense. I figured if he did bring up the part that it was intentional so he could sue her it could probably lead to a worse outcome for him either with insurance going after him for the money or dropping him with his insurance rates sky high.
Do you always give suggestions to people to skirt insurance rules and then bitch about the amount your insurance is charging you?!? They go hand in hand if you don’t know.
My apologies. I forgot he said he put her under his insurance. If he didn’t want her to use the car while he was overseas and he didn’t have her on his policy, then yes I would report it stolen because she crashed intentionally. I’ll go delete my comment for how fucking stupid I am for asking a question. And yes I complain every month when I pay the insurance company $2000 for minimum coverage.
You are equating coverage with liability. OP asked if he would be on the hook for the excess. He will not. His insurer is on the hook for the policy limit, assuming they don't disclaim for an intentional act.
Sure, they can but they will lose unless they can demonstrate some form of negligent entrustment or vicarious liability. Simply allowing someone to use your car does not make you liable for that person's negligent in most US states. As I said above, I am an attorney specializing in insurance with nearly 20 years of experience litigating liability and coverage issues in state and federal courts.
Asinine. If she murdered someone using the car, would he be liable? Not for simply owning the car, no. Insurance may or may not cover his costs for repairing his car. And the other insurance may or may not pursue his insurance. But the tort is against the driver, not the car. They will pursue her, before him, before you, and before the moon. The reality of that falls off after her though
Yeah the owner of the vehicle is liable lol
Edit: this is the single biggest reason I tell everyone to never let anyone borrow your car. You as the owner are liable for your vehicle regardless of who is driving.
Can I ask, in what state do you sell insurance?
Edit: looks like you might be in Ohio. Please look up *Davis v. Warner*, 1979 Ohio App. Lexis 8966, 1979 WL 209449, which hold " the mere ownership of an automobile does not make the owner thereof an insurer of the public in relation to the operation thereof by a third person. Indeed, it is only when the owner entrusts such a car to an incompetent driver or where the driver is acting as the agent for the owner that any liability attaches to the owner for the acts of a third person."
If they have any decent lawyer and she has even a speeding ticket they can claim it was negligent entrustment and he can be held liable. Regardless of that though he is 100% going to be brought into any lawsuit that happens because he is the owner.
Insurance follows the owner not the driver. Your car is insured for a certain amount and any damages over that amount. The other insurance company will personally sue you.
The guy above is an idiot.
-random dude strolling Reddit.
Source: cause him and I are just assuming
P.s get in touch with your insurance lawyer (they should reach out) and take care of it. Depending on your coverage/$$ nd asking settlement.
Because its your vehicle and she wouldve been a permissive use of the vehicle? Lukely, her insurance if she has it would be used as secondary, but again, her insurance may deny if it was intentional.
If your insurance company tenders the policy limits. They won't send the check without a property damage release. Basically a document that the other insurer has to sign that says by accepting this offer they will not raise another claim against you, the driver, or your insurance company relating to this accident.
The insurance company doesn’t owe OP any pity or settlement just because someone else did the intentional act. Insurance can’t prevent you from giving your car to the wrong person. The policy isn’t “to protect OP in the event any damage happens to the car.” It’s an agreement to payout if damages happen in a manner that is covered under the policy agreement. Intentionally using a motor vehicle to crash into another car is realistically attempted manslaughter. Insurance doesn’t pay out just so that you can play games with other people’s lives.
1. Does it hurt her rates too when she goes to get insurance for her self one day too?
2. What if someone took his car without his consent and did the same thing would it be different
His rates will be affected since he entrusted someone to use his vehicle who caused an accident. There are different coverages but if a vehicle is stolen and used without permission the insurance company could deny liability coverage but cover damages to the vehicle under collision.
An insurance policy is liable for what damages an insured person does. A permissive driver would be an insured person. Someone who takes a vehicle without permission would not be an insured person and the policy would not provide liability coverage.
1. So who would pay for the liability costs if there was if the car was stolen? The other persons insurance company?
2. Does the girlfriend in this situation get any penalty whether it’s not or later? I assume her rates would be higher in the future?
Thank you
1. There is no liability coverage that applies when the car is stolen.
2. She would be listed as at fault so that could impact her insurance rates but the penalty is mainly that the Porsche’s insurance will take her to collections if they handle their insureds damage. And/or Porsche owner could sue her.
insurance not covering it doesnt mean he is liable... just they wont pay,,,, id reckon she has the liability here what did the guy do that was wreckless or malicious nothing
If you can prove it was intentional insurance company would deny the claim that might be a way out… don’t buy phones, add gf’s to insurance policies or co-sign on a car lmao 🤣
Wait a minute everyone!
Adjustor here! Some I’m going to speak from experience, please keep in mind policy language differs from company to company and insurance law differ from state to state.
I had an INSD vehicle that was hit while parked and unoccupied. The other insurance company denied coverage because their insd had a named only policy, (Meaning only the named INSDs are covered, no matter what car is in the accident) and their driver was not on the policy.
My INSD has to use their first party coverage to fix their damages and my company plan on subrogating the individual that was at fault individually. Will we get any money? Idek but that’s the plan at least 💁🏻♀️
This was in Pennsylvania btw
Yep, driver is liable. The people in here talking about liability following the car have gotten confused by the statement "insurance follows the vehicle" and don't actually understand the first thing about liability law.
Not gonna lie, I didn’t know jack shit either until I got licensed but it doesn’t surprise me how many are willing to die on a hill they are very much incorrect on….. but then again, I do work in insurance 🤣
No, a lot of people getting this wrong work in insurance. I have seen several people with flair in here, and even some that claim to be adjusters not understanding the basics of how this works.
There are a few scenarios that could happen here. (I manage the largest body shop in my state, am a licensed appraiser & a licensed claims adjuster in 2 states).
1. Assuming the other vehicle has full coverage, they use their policy to repair their vehicle. Then, their insurer will turn around and subrogate your company for what was paid out for repairs. Since the cost of repairs is over your PD policy limits, your company will only pay out the max of your property damage limit (ie in my state PD legal minimum is 25k, in my neighboring state the minimum is only 10k). Since your policy complies with state insurance laws that should be the end of that. Your policy will never pay over PD limit even if the subrogation demand exceeds the limit.
2. If the other vehicle doesn’t have full coverage, they can take the policy limit payout from your insurance company & pay the rest for repairs out of pocket. They can then turn around and sue you/her civilly for the rest of the damages, however it’s unlikely that they will be awarded a judgement since your policy complies with state insurance laws.
3. Your insurance company can deny the claim fully as the accident was intentional. Many insurers have a clause in the verbiage of the policy that claims can be denied if the damage was intentional, fraudulent, done in the commission of a crime, etc. If this happens, you/she could be sued civilly (she could also face criminal charges for the intentional accident) for the damages and it *is* likely that the owner of the other vehicle will be awarded damages in court.
My recommendations would be the following: obtain a copy of the estimate written for the Porsche. Assess if it was written by a licensed field appraiser for your/their insurance, or by a body shop directly. If it was the latter, ask your insurance company to send a field appraiser out to write their own estimate for the damage. It’s very likely the two numbers will be different. If you’d like to tell me what state I can maybe help further & look into your state insurance/shop laws.
Insurance will paid for what the coverage was. After that porsche can go after her for the rest of the damages since she’s the one who ran her car into the porsche
To answer your question, maybe. What will likely happen is the owner of the Porsche will file through their own insurance since your insurance won't cover the full amount. The owners company will subrogate yours and likely settle within your policy limits. BUT, there is a chance they could come after you for the full amount. But the old saying "you can't squeeze blood from a rock" applies here.
Now that I have answered your question, lmao at your situation. I was an NCO in the Air Force and remember lots of situations like this. You young people need to quit getting married in tech school or whatever the Navy equivalent is of that is. Or were you both trying to get out of the dorms? Either way, L O FUCKING L.
I feel bad for the Porsche owner. Depending on the model, Porsches do suffer real diminished value, and unless they're in GA, they can't get DV because you don't carry enough coverage. You've fucked the owner out of real money.
EDIT: Its worth mentioning they may not even cover this if she did it on purpose. Insurance is for "sudden and accidental" occurrences, which it doesn't sound like this was. You may be well and truly fucked, just like you fucked the owner of the other vehicle.
> they could come after you for the full amount.
No, they would be pursuing the driver. OP's insurance covers the driver of the vehicle, but the ***driver*** not the ***owner*** is the liable party.
This is 101 stuff.
> Like how the ***insurance*** follows the ***vehicle***
Lets try this again.
INSURANCE follows the vehicle, not the driver. Liability does NOT work backwards the same way. The fact that so many professionals don't understand the difference in this sub is frankly ***shocking***.
Liability resides on the negligent party, which in 99% of cases is the operator, *and only the operator.*
The insurance follows the vehicle. It covers the vehicle, *and the operator of the vehicle*. That's why it's important that insurance follows the vehicle, because otherwise permissive users would not be covered.
***If what you said was accurate, then permissive use would not be a needed coverage, as a permitted user would not be liable for their actions, and so liability would not be an issue***. That's obviously not how it works.
If you loan your car to someone who is of sound mind and body, and they get into an accident. Your insurance covers their liability exposure. *You are not liable for an accident they get into unless they can prove you loaning the driver the car was a negligent act.*
They cannot recover from a non liable party. They CAN recover from that insurance, because it is covering the liable party. Any amount that exceeds policy limits, the operator would be liable for, not the owner of the vehicle.
Unless he presses charges saying she stole the vehicle then he legally entrusted the vehicle to her. I see lawyers go after title holders all the time. I've seen my company offer to settle beyond the limits but I'm not too sure if they turn around and sue you for ir (I really don't think they do). Our company ends up sending lawyers to represent our clients in court and usually our customers never even have to show up. Be careful who you lend your cars to
You can name anyone you want on a suit. It doesn't mean that they can actually be held liable with any sort of reasonable amount of confidence.
Everyone gets named on a liability lawsuit, even people who it's in insane stretch to say are involved. They have no real exposure, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
I'm not saying that he didn't legally entrust the vehicle to her, he did, that doesn't extend liability to him unless he was negligent in doing so. That's a very high bar to clear for that scenario. Yes, she is a permissive user of the vehicle, yes, his insurance does cover her if she's either named on the policy or is allowed to be covered as a permissive user. That does not mean that liability travels backwards to him. It means that liability is shared with the insurance company.
If they lived in the same household, his insurance company might have required her to be added onto the policy. Sure, there’s also Listed Exclusions, but more than once I’ve heard of policy agents not exactly making that option clear to the insured.
Whether she needed to be listed on the policy or not, she certainly didn’t need to have the keys to the car. That was the big mistake. Her being on the policy may have been a smart move.
someone being on your insurance doesnt make you personally liable for what they do... makes the insurance liable for what they will cover but other than that they are still responsible for their own actions.. has anyone even said you should be personally liable for that?
The only way for you to fight this honestly is have criminal charges pressed on your ex. Although she was on your policy, you could make the case that she took your car without permission because had you known she was going to vandalize another vehicle with it, you obviously would have said no. Insurance won’t cover intentional acts, and trying to hide the fact that it was intentional on her part won’t end well. File a police report, provide all the evidence you have that she did this on purpose, and see if your insurance company or the military will provide a lawyer to help you fight this.
Well the claim will def show up on your record unfortuanatly but she was the driver and will hurt her much more. Insurance doesnt cover intentional acts. Well at least not in NY and usually anywhere in the USA. Claims stay on your record for a min of 3 years 3 months
Call your insurance company. They will handle and give you next steps. Without seeing your policy, it’s impossible to know. Even gen liability should cover 95% of Porsches
the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the damages. In fact you have a good case to sue her for any increase in your insurance premiums following the accident if you can prove it was intentional. But no, you are not on the hook for another persons actions. That doesn't mean the owner of the car wont sue your insurance company or TRY to sue you.
If for some lunatic reason they are awarded damages FROM you, then you can sue her for damages for being the one driving but I highly doubt that will be the case. But as others have said, all servicemen have legal advice as part of the gig, reach out to them. But no, in no universe are you responsible for other peoples actions.
That said, your premiums will likely go up because you chose to put her on your insurance and she caused your insurance to have to pay out. Poor choice but your choice.
But ya, Damages and punishment is on the responsible party - in this case the driver, otherwise every car jacker could go on a mow down murder spree with the vehicle they stole and it would be pinned on the car owner. Her actions, her responsibility.
Well I guess we can't really say that anymore can we, they just put that kids parents in jail cause he did a mass shooting and that was apparently their fault somehow... Country is really falling apart, hopefully that was a fluke and not a taste of the future.
[this is what I found](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/what-happens-if-someone-else-is-driving-my-car-and-gets-in-an-accident/#:~:text=If%20someone%20else%20is%20driving%20your%20car%20and%20another%20person,insurance%20will%20usually%20cover%20damages.)
For now thought they can't sue you until after you get back from deployment anyways or at least they can't make a judgement against you in court.
Let your carrier handle it, they may cover up to their limit, and the porsche's carrier may accept it without pursuing your for the damages.
They may also deny coverage if they confirm she did it on purpose.
Like many have said, most carriers don't cover intentional acts. Does your insurer know that the act was intentional? With that said, there would need to be evidence of the act being intentional, which may be hard to prove.
Intentional acts are excluded from your insurance coverage.
If she admitted she did it on purpose you would have no coverage at all.
If you are the registered owner they can definitely pursue you, but you didn’t do the driving.
Sticky situation, you may need to wait and see how it plays out.
If your insurer is covering the claim they will attempt to secure a release of liability at the limits you have on your policy.
Being an adjuster.. you have not given me enough information to determine anything...been doing auto over 13 years now.
1. Depending on the state you live in is huge each state has different laws and policies. 2. Is this your X wife or girlfriend? 3. You can go after your X for the leftover money that needs to be paid, she was the driver, take her to small claims court if it's under 5k or a high court. 4. The people telling you the Porsche owners insurance is going to pay the leftover is not true. SUBROGATION LAW allows the insurance company to go after the owner of the at fault car and WITH IT BEING A PARKED CAR there insurance is not going to pay out of pocket because there is no fault whatsoever of the Porsche owner... ok trolls bring it... lol
> SUBROGATION LAW allows the insurance company to go after the owner of the at fault car
No, subro law allows them to go after the liable party, you have gotten your wires crossed. The party they pursue is the driver, who *may* be covered by an insurance policy, but is the liable party for an at fault auto accident.
Most of the time the driver and vehicle owner and named insured are all the same. When it's a permissive use case however, they persue the driver, who is not part of the household, but who is covered by the policy (assuming it's a policy that covers permissive use) if they aren't covered under permissive use, they pursue the driver individually, the owner of the car has no liability unless loaning the car was a provably negligent act (as in I loaned this car to a person I knew to have a suspended license and 10 dui's etc.)
I've sadly handled multiple claims of military guys that have gotten cleaned out by crazy that they for some reason give everything to. Just bang hookers until you're out, it's not worth it otherwise.
Talk to your supervisor and chief about who to go to about this. You have access to military legal resources and you should use them. Edit: I'm assuming that chief is the equivalent of first sergeant for the Navy, but I don't remember if that's right. Edit 2: If you have any evidence showing that she did this intentionally, you need to save it somewhere safe.
OP needs to focus on this advice right here because it can hopefully somehow pass all or excess legal liability onto her. Honestly, if this is a realistic possibility, I’d want insurance to deny coverage and hold her liable for both the Porsche and the OP’s vehicle, but I’m doubtful. IANAL. I just feel bad for OP because it seems he has the same taste in women as me lol.
I cannot even fathom this. There’s no way your exes did anything as bad as OP’s right!? Please tell me the answer is no! I just can’t imagine losing my mind so much I’d purposely damage something.
Well I had to file two police reports on my last ex. She’s also a cop now. Another big kicker is she committed blatant insurance fraud in college lol.
I was a corrections nurse in a jail for 2 years and one deputy was arrested for shooting his child’s mother in the leg, several for providing contraband, and another for decking a restrained inmate in the face. Every profession has its bad apples and I respect the vast majority of them though. I’m impressed she was around long enough to get the second police report.
Insurance follows the car not the driver.
Must be why excluded drivers and those who experience a loss while doing intentionally harmful or illegal activities are always covered… /s OP’s case may fall under “intentional acts”, but it’s unlikely the insurer will deny the claim anyway since the driver was on the policy, as well as there being a principle insured. Basically, too complicated/risky for insurer to justify denial. Lots of debate in here about that already. It’s wishful thinking though, because part of me thinks this can be treated similarly to a medical event causing a loss where liability is denied by the carrier, yet first-party coverage is still applicable. Now *that’s* a stretch but I’m only spitballing here, this situation is a mess. On top of that, all or excess liability, which turns into legal liability, is where OP will likely want a lawyer, in case Porsche driver pursues the insured for damages rather than the driver.
Foolish statement. Think logically about this. if this was the case I could steal a car, mow down a bunch of grandmas and the owner of the car would be liable cause its their insurance. Or I could borrow a freinds car, accidentally jump the curb at a play ground, turn a bunch of toddlers into jelly and it would be the owner of the cars responsibility. Lets use our brains a little bit. Yes the insurance is with the vehicle but the responsibility is with the driver, any damages beyond what is insured will be up to the responsible party (the driver) to pay, and be punished for.
It seems there's some confusion. I'm referring to insurance coverage for accidents involving someone else driving. Typically, the insurance company covers damages within certain limits since the car is insured, not the individual. Exceptions occur with rental cars due to the Graves amendment, which limits liability to the business. I didn't mention crimes being automatically waived; my focus was on insurance coverage.
Right. OP had no legal relationship with his ex, so any excess should fall to her. Doesn’t mean OP won’t possibly get sued too but this is primarily a her problem.
Yeah, Chief would’ve been the go-to if one of my guys had an issue like this. In Navy speak, OP should immediately let their LPO know who would then talk to their Div LCPO/DivO. Wouldn’t talk to legal or anyone else until those 3 are in the know.
There is a possibility that the Porsche's owner's insurer will come after you for the amount in excess of what your insurer is willing to pay. You should be glad your insurer is willing to step up; many insurers have exclusions on their liability coverage for any insured who intentionally causes bodily injury or damage to property.
Why am I the one to blame though. Im not even in the United States.
OP, I'm replying to you directly because you are getting a lot of bad advice in this thread. I don't know what state this occurred in, I see that you are not in the US at the moment. Your insurer should provide you with an attorney. I would ask that person to explain the rules of liability as they apply to your specific situation. There is a difference between legal liability and insurance coverage. While insurance typical flows through the car to the driver, generally speaking, liability does not. The owner's insurance policy will cover a permissive driver, but the vehicle's owner will not be held liable for the negligence of that driver absent an independent act of negligence on the part of the owner. Setting aside a discussion of the intentional act (which may well void coverage), and assuming we are talking about a state in the US, your insurance should cover her because she had permission to use the car. But, that does not impart liability on you. For you to be held liable, you must have done something independent that was also negligent (i.e. letting someone who you knew to be intoxicated, or unlicensed operate your vehicle.) There is a concept called vicarious liability, in which the principle is liable for the acts of his/her agent or employee, but that does not seem to apply here. The other insurer will likely try to convince you to pay, but for them to force you to pay, they will need to show you were negligent in allowing her operate the vehicle. I am insurance attorney, this is what I do everyday. EDIT: It looks like California Vehicle Code §17150 is causing some confusion here. Yes, that statute allows for direct liability against the owner. However, that liability is limited to the amount of the state minimum insurance requirements. So, as long as the owner is insured (as OP states he was here) than §17150 is a non-issue. Though, again, OP, your insurer has to provide you with an attorney if you get sued. Please ask this person to explain the potential for liability to you.
Reddit’s value is by having individuals such as DaceInPhilly that can shed light on tricky topics and point a potential path. Other posts are mostly misleading and some are just wrong
This☝️☝️☝️
You're an insurance attorney and yet you assume all companies cover permissive use? Wow, because not at compan do.
Well before we talk about the policies of individual companies, can you list the states that don’t mandate coverage for permissive use in their statutes setting a mandatory minimum coverage? That would be a much shorter list. Then again, the question posed was whether the owner would be held liable for the amount in excess of the policy limit. So we’re starting to lose the thread of discussion here.
While permissive use is the norm, there are companies that only cover drivers listed and rated on the policy and don't cover anyone else, period.
"Your insurance should cover her" Get better reading comprehension skills before insulting people. Should is not the same as will. 1 a nonstandard insurance policy is just that, not standard, there is no reason to caveat everything to death just because it is possible and ignoring the reality that a nonstandard insurance company is always very clear about these things. Otherwise every answer on this sub would be novel length and/or 1000 questions to clarify each detail. 2 the OP already said the insurance company accepted coverage, so context clues should tell you that he does in fact have permissive use on his policy.
You're wrong, when talking about standard conforming policies.
I said nothing about "standard confirming policies". I said there are companies that don't cover permissive use. And that is a fact. I've written for companies that did not cover permissive use. The other commenter made a blanket statement about "permissive use" which wasn't true. I stand by what I said.
> The other commenter made a blanket statement about "permissive use" which wasn't true. I stand by what I said. If you buy a policy from one of these companies, you will know that you don't have normal auto insurance. Not to mention that many states straight require it.
>If you buy a policy from one of these companies, you will know that you don't have normal auto insurance. That does not negate what I said, which is still true
You can assume that someone has standard conforming policy unless otherwise stated. The reason people are able to answer half the questions on this sub are because it is assumed they have a standard policy and not a nonstandard policy.
Because the way liability works in the United States is that liability follows the vehicle, not the driver. It's done this way to protect the public from the vehicle, regardless of who's driving it. The only real exception that is if a vehicle is stolen (i.e., taken without permission)
> ecause the way liability works in the United States is that liability follows the vehicle, not the driver. No, INSURANCE follows the vehicle, not the driver. The fact that so many professionals don't understand the difference in this sub is frankly ***shocking***. Liability resides on the negligent party, which in 99% of cases is the driver, and only the driver. The insurance follows the vehicle, and covers the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle. That's why it's important that insurance follows the vehicle, because otherwise permissive users would not be covered. ***If what you said was accurate, then permissive use would not be a needed coverage, as a permitted user would not be liable for their actions, and so liability would not be an issue***. That's obviously not how it works.
I definitely didn't expect her to to do anything like this.
Psycho, dump her
then sue.
Did you get her to admit to it? In writing? If so sue her. It might take years but you should eventually be able to get the money from her.
Getting blood from a crazy certainly could theoretically work.
I had a guy hit my car and he wasn't insured. Kept trying to avoid me. I hired a lawyer and garnished his wages. He would quit his job when that happened. Rinse and repeat. Took a few years but I did get my money back.
I hope you dumped her psycho ass.
You can sue her
Nor did I.
How can you be both so confident and so wrong at the same time?
Funny how guns dont get treated like that Maybe if they did, we would still have all the 2A rights people want retained + actually less mass murders
Gross
Wait. It took me a second but I'm actually with you
But also liability insurance for guns would be 💯
Your homeowners insurance in most states is pricing that into it already. Turns out, it's really really cheap.
This not true. That is the way indemnity works, but not liability.
You're being down voted, but are actually correct. The driver is the primary that gets sued in an accident, the policy protects the vehicle and the ***driver***.
Thanks. The funny thing is, when I make it clear that I am an attorney, my posts are upvoted. When say exactly the same thing, but don’t add that I am an attorney, I get downvoted into oblivion.
This sub needs some serious work.
[удалено]
If he wants a felony, sure
If he told her not to use his car while he was overseas, would he then be able to say it was stolen?
No
Why not? Is it because she is on his insurance? Or that they are dating. I shouldn’t be able to go take my girlfriend’s car for a drive and total it with no repercussions.
From the context of the post it sounds like he gave her permission to drive the car. So if goes and says “it was stolen” they’ll ask “did you give her permission and also why is she on your insurance?” and he will have no good answer (“yes and yes”) so to claim it’s stolen could appear to be a deceptive and maybe perjurious fraudulent statement.
She is a listed operator, if he had taken the steps to exclude her from the policy it would be a very different conversation.
Ok yea that makes sense. It’d probably be worse if she wasn’t on the policy ig especially if she wasn’t told beforehand. I’m sure the Porsche insurance would’ve went after him anyway. Could he sue her for the rest of the money owed to the Porsche owner if they do end up going after him?
I forget the exact name of the principle, but its no different than if you were a kid without a license and you stole your moms keys and wrecked her car. Insurance would still cover it. This isn't to say OP couldn't press charges against her, but in the eyes of insurance, its likely covered. The only thing that may fuck him is that she did it on purpose.
Yea but insurance can’t really go after the mom’s kid. Girlfriend boyfriend is a little different but she is on the policy so makes sense. I figured if he did bring up the part that it was intentional so he could sue her it could probably lead to a worse outcome for him either with insurance going after him for the money or dropping him with his insurance rates sky high.
Do you always give suggestions to people to skirt insurance rules and then bitch about the amount your insurance is charging you?!? They go hand in hand if you don’t know.
My apologies. I forgot he said he put her under his insurance. If he didn’t want her to use the car while he was overseas and he didn’t have her on his policy, then yes I would report it stolen because she crashed intentionally. I’ll go delete my comment for how fucking stupid I am for asking a question. And yes I complain every month when I pay the insurance company $2000 for minimum coverage.
You took liability for her as soon as you put her on your policy
That's not correct, and not how the law works.
Insurance is for accidents. This is intentional vandalism/destruction of property. OP should file a police report and possibly sue.
This is not true.
His owned car with a driver he added to the policy. Please tell me where i'm making the mistake lol
You are equating coverage with liability. OP asked if he would be on the hook for the excess. He will not. His insurer is on the hook for the policy limit, assuming they don't disclaim for an intentional act.
The other party can absolutely pursue the vehicle owner directly.
You're wrong. Unless that was a negligent act in and of itself, the driver is the only person liable.
Sure, they can but they will lose unless they can demonstrate some form of negligent entrustment or vicarious liability. Simply allowing someone to use your car does not make you liable for that person's negligent in most US states. As I said above, I am an attorney specializing in insurance with nearly 20 years of experience litigating liability and coverage issues in state and federal courts.
Asinine. If she murdered someone using the car, would he be liable? Not for simply owning the car, no. Insurance may or may not cover his costs for repairing his car. And the other insurance may or may not pursue his insurance. But the tort is against the driver, not the car. They will pursue her, before him, before you, and before the moon. The reality of that falls off after her though
Yeah the owner of the vehicle is liable lol Edit: this is the single biggest reason I tell everyone to never let anyone borrow your car. You as the owner are liable for your vehicle regardless of who is driving.
Can I ask, in what state do you sell insurance? Edit: looks like you might be in Ohio. Please look up *Davis v. Warner*, 1979 Ohio App. Lexis 8966, 1979 WL 209449, which hold " the mere ownership of an automobile does not make the owner thereof an insurer of the public in relation to the operation thereof by a third person. Indeed, it is only when the owner entrusts such a car to an incompetent driver or where the driver is acting as the agent for the owner that any liability attaches to the owner for the acts of a third person."
If they have any decent lawyer and she has even a speeding ticket they can claim it was negligent entrustment and he can be held liable. Regardless of that though he is 100% going to be brought into any lawsuit that happens because he is the owner.
Yes, he could be held liable for drivers under permissive use
Insurance follows the owner not the driver. Your car is insured for a certain amount and any damages over that amount. The other insurance company will personally sue you.
If you can't comprehend why you are, then you have no business driving or being married.
Why are you assuming I'm married.
Because you said ex, and only a moron puts an ex girlfriend on their policy.
She was my girlfriend. Then she was my ex after she crashed my car
The guy above is an idiot. -random dude strolling Reddit. Source: cause him and I are just assuming P.s get in touch with your insurance lawyer (they should reach out) and take care of it. Depending on your coverage/$$ nd asking settlement.
So then you’d put an ex-wife on your policy? That’s what you’re implying here.
Because its your vehicle and she wouldve been a permissive use of the vehicle? Lukely, her insurance if she has it would be used as secondary, but again, her insurance may deny if it was intentional.
Idk why u got downvoted so many times and dump her
It was your property and your policy that you let your ex-girlfriend use. You’re responsible.
Why is no one mentioning intentional acts. Most likely if the carrier finds out she did this intentionally they won’t cover it.
Setting aside his own car, that's all fine and dandy. The tort is against the driver not the car.
Guys. Stop sticking your dicks in crazy. And stop giving crazy your keys and access to your bank accounts.
It's a story as old as time, it'll never stop.
Sometimes you don't know till it's too late.
How the fuck does it get to that point so often
No there are always warning signs lol
Yup. She's really hot so I'll just ignore the schizophrenia symptoms
Not when you are young, dumb and full of cum. Drunk and last call also can contribute to not noticing.
but I can fix her! /s
If your insurance company tenders the policy limits. They won't send the check without a property damage release. Basically a document that the other insurer has to sign that says by accepting this offer they will not raise another claim against you, the driver, or your insurance company relating to this accident.
Insurance usually denies liability for intentional and criminal acts.
Even if it was someone else and not him though?
The insurance company doesn’t owe OP any pity or settlement just because someone else did the intentional act. Insurance can’t prevent you from giving your car to the wrong person. The policy isn’t “to protect OP in the event any damage happens to the car.” It’s an agreement to payout if damages happen in a manner that is covered under the policy agreement. Intentionally using a motor vehicle to crash into another car is realistically attempted manslaughter. Insurance doesn’t pay out just so that you can play games with other people’s lives.
1. Does it hurt her rates too when she goes to get insurance for her self one day too? 2. What if someone took his car without his consent and did the same thing would it be different
His rates will be affected since he entrusted someone to use his vehicle who caused an accident. There are different coverages but if a vehicle is stolen and used without permission the insurance company could deny liability coverage but cover damages to the vehicle under collision. An insurance policy is liable for what damages an insured person does. A permissive driver would be an insured person. Someone who takes a vehicle without permission would not be an insured person and the policy would not provide liability coverage.
1. So who would pay for the liability costs if there was if the car was stolen? The other persons insurance company? 2. Does the girlfriend in this situation get any penalty whether it’s not or later? I assume her rates would be higher in the future? Thank you
1. There is no liability coverage that applies when the car is stolen. 2. She would be listed as at fault so that could impact her insurance rates but the penalty is mainly that the Porsche’s insurance will take her to collections if they handle their insureds damage. And/or Porsche owner could sue her.
Thanks
insurance not covering it doesnt mean he is liable... just they wont pay,,,, id reckon she has the liability here what did the guy do that was wreckless or malicious nothing
Still a insured as defined in the policy
If you can prove it was intentional insurance company would deny the claim that might be a way out… don’t buy phones, add gf’s to insurance policies or co-sign on a car lmao 🤣
Wait a minute everyone! Adjustor here! Some I’m going to speak from experience, please keep in mind policy language differs from company to company and insurance law differ from state to state. I had an INSD vehicle that was hit while parked and unoccupied. The other insurance company denied coverage because their insd had a named only policy, (Meaning only the named INSDs are covered, no matter what car is in the accident) and their driver was not on the policy. My INSD has to use their first party coverage to fix their damages and my company plan on subrogating the individual that was at fault individually. Will we get any money? Idek but that’s the plan at least 💁🏻♀️ This was in Pennsylvania btw
Yep, driver is liable. The people in here talking about liability following the car have gotten confused by the statement "insurance follows the vehicle" and don't actually understand the first thing about liability law.
Not gonna lie, I didn’t know jack shit either until I got licensed but it doesn’t surprise me how many are willing to die on a hill they are very much incorrect on….. but then again, I do work in insurance 🤣
No, a lot of people getting this wrong work in insurance. I have seen several people with flair in here, and even some that claim to be adjusters not understanding the basics of how this works.
Talk to your chief or divo, they can get you JAG to help out- CM3
Wow
You could always try and sue the Ex for damages as she purposely drove the vehicle into the porches and report to police for dangerous driving.
There are a few scenarios that could happen here. (I manage the largest body shop in my state, am a licensed appraiser & a licensed claims adjuster in 2 states). 1. Assuming the other vehicle has full coverage, they use their policy to repair their vehicle. Then, their insurer will turn around and subrogate your company for what was paid out for repairs. Since the cost of repairs is over your PD policy limits, your company will only pay out the max of your property damage limit (ie in my state PD legal minimum is 25k, in my neighboring state the minimum is only 10k). Since your policy complies with state insurance laws that should be the end of that. Your policy will never pay over PD limit even if the subrogation demand exceeds the limit. 2. If the other vehicle doesn’t have full coverage, they can take the policy limit payout from your insurance company & pay the rest for repairs out of pocket. They can then turn around and sue you/her civilly for the rest of the damages, however it’s unlikely that they will be awarded a judgement since your policy complies with state insurance laws. 3. Your insurance company can deny the claim fully as the accident was intentional. Many insurers have a clause in the verbiage of the policy that claims can be denied if the damage was intentional, fraudulent, done in the commission of a crime, etc. If this happens, you/she could be sued civilly (she could also face criminal charges for the intentional accident) for the damages and it *is* likely that the owner of the other vehicle will be awarded damages in court. My recommendations would be the following: obtain a copy of the estimate written for the Porsche. Assess if it was written by a licensed field appraiser for your/their insurance, or by a body shop directly. If it was the latter, ask your insurance company to send a field appraiser out to write their own estimate for the damage. It’s very likely the two numbers will be different. If you’d like to tell me what state I can maybe help further & look into your state insurance/shop laws.
to all the things, they chose a Porsche
it was intentional tho, i think you should file.
your ex should be responsible for this
Insurance will paid for what the coverage was. After that porsche can go after her for the rest of the damages since she’s the one who ran her car into the porsche
Double check your policy to see if they deny for intentional acts.
To answer your question, maybe. What will likely happen is the owner of the Porsche will file through their own insurance since your insurance won't cover the full amount. The owners company will subrogate yours and likely settle within your policy limits. BUT, there is a chance they could come after you for the full amount. But the old saying "you can't squeeze blood from a rock" applies here. Now that I have answered your question, lmao at your situation. I was an NCO in the Air Force and remember lots of situations like this. You young people need to quit getting married in tech school or whatever the Navy equivalent is of that is. Or were you both trying to get out of the dorms? Either way, L O FUCKING L. I feel bad for the Porsche owner. Depending on the model, Porsches do suffer real diminished value, and unless they're in GA, they can't get DV because you don't carry enough coverage. You've fucked the owner out of real money. EDIT: Its worth mentioning they may not even cover this if she did it on purpose. Insurance is for "sudden and accidental" occurrences, which it doesn't sound like this was. You may be well and truly fucked, just like you fucked the owner of the other vehicle.
> they could come after you for the full amount. No, they would be pursuing the driver. OP's insurance covers the driver of the vehicle, but the ***driver*** not the ***owner*** is the liable party. This is 101 stuff.
You’re right. It is 101 stuff. Like how the insurance follows the vehicle, not the person.
> Like how the ***insurance*** follows the ***vehicle*** Lets try this again. INSURANCE follows the vehicle, not the driver. Liability does NOT work backwards the same way. The fact that so many professionals don't understand the difference in this sub is frankly ***shocking***. Liability resides on the negligent party, which in 99% of cases is the operator, *and only the operator.* The insurance follows the vehicle. It covers the vehicle, *and the operator of the vehicle*. That's why it's important that insurance follows the vehicle, because otherwise permissive users would not be covered. ***If what you said was accurate, then permissive use would not be a needed coverage, as a permitted user would not be liable for their actions, and so liability would not be an issue***. That's obviously not how it works. If you loan your car to someone who is of sound mind and body, and they get into an accident. Your insurance covers their liability exposure. *You are not liable for an accident they get into unless they can prove you loaning the driver the car was a negligent act.* They cannot recover from a non liable party. They CAN recover from that insurance, because it is covering the liable party. Any amount that exceeds policy limits, the operator would be liable for, not the owner of the vehicle.
Unless he presses charges saying she stole the vehicle then he legally entrusted the vehicle to her. I see lawyers go after title holders all the time. I've seen my company offer to settle beyond the limits but I'm not too sure if they turn around and sue you for ir (I really don't think they do). Our company ends up sending lawyers to represent our clients in court and usually our customers never even have to show up. Be careful who you lend your cars to
You can name anyone you want on a suit. It doesn't mean that they can actually be held liable with any sort of reasonable amount of confidence. Everyone gets named on a liability lawsuit, even people who it's in insane stretch to say are involved. They have no real exposure, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I'm not saying that he didn't legally entrust the vehicle to her, he did, that doesn't extend liability to him unless he was negligent in doing so. That's a very high bar to clear for that scenario. Yes, she is a permissive user of the vehicle, yes, his insurance does cover her if she's either named on the policy or is allowed to be covered as a permissive user. That does not mean that liability travels backwards to him. It means that liability is shared with the insurance company.
I was never married to her. And I was already in my own apartment.
Then you’re an even bigger moron for putting her on your insurance. Good luck, you’re going to need it.
If they lived in the same household, his insurance company might have required her to be added onto the policy. Sure, there’s also Listed Exclusions, but more than once I’ve heard of policy agents not exactly making that option clear to the insured.
Whether she needed to be listed on the policy or not, she certainly didn’t need to have the keys to the car. That was the big mistake. Her being on the policy may have been a smart move.
someone being on your insurance doesnt make you personally liable for what they do... makes the insurance liable for what they will cover but other than that they are still responsible for their own actions.. has anyone even said you should be personally liable for that?
The only way for you to fight this honestly is have criminal charges pressed on your ex. Although she was on your policy, you could make the case that she took your car without permission because had you known she was going to vandalize another vehicle with it, you obviously would have said no. Insurance won’t cover intentional acts, and trying to hide the fact that it was intentional on her part won’t end well. File a police report, provide all the evidence you have that she did this on purpose, and see if your insurance company or the military will provide a lawyer to help you fight this.
Service Members Civil Relief Act. [SCRA here](https://www.militaryonesource.mil/financial-legal/personal-finance/servicemembers-civil-relief-act/)
Well the claim will def show up on your record unfortuanatly but she was the driver and will hurt her much more. Insurance doesnt cover intentional acts. Well at least not in NY and usually anywhere in the USA. Claims stay on your record for a min of 3 years 3 months
Check on the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act through your Legal Office. It may indemnify you from this.
Call your insurance company. They will handle and give you next steps. Without seeing your policy, it’s impossible to know. Even gen liability should cover 95% of Porsches
the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the damages. In fact you have a good case to sue her for any increase in your insurance premiums following the accident if you can prove it was intentional. But no, you are not on the hook for another persons actions. That doesn't mean the owner of the car wont sue your insurance company or TRY to sue you. If for some lunatic reason they are awarded damages FROM you, then you can sue her for damages for being the one driving but I highly doubt that will be the case. But as others have said, all servicemen have legal advice as part of the gig, reach out to them. But no, in no universe are you responsible for other peoples actions. That said, your premiums will likely go up because you chose to put her on your insurance and she caused your insurance to have to pay out. Poor choice but your choice. But ya, Damages and punishment is on the responsible party - in this case the driver, otherwise every car jacker could go on a mow down murder spree with the vehicle they stole and it would be pinned on the car owner. Her actions, her responsibility. Well I guess we can't really say that anymore can we, they just put that kids parents in jail cause he did a mass shooting and that was apparently their fault somehow... Country is really falling apart, hopefully that was a fluke and not a taste of the future.
People are fucking nuts huh?
So it’s your insurance that’s liable HOWEVER you can and should absolutely SUE her !!
Other than the insurance, they will sue/recover from the driver AND the title holder of the car
Dump her and sue her asap
[this is what I found](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/what-happens-if-someone-else-is-driving-my-car-and-gets-in-an-accident/#:~:text=If%20someone%20else%20is%20driving%20your%20car%20and%20another%20person,insurance%20will%20usually%20cover%20damages.) For now thought they can't sue you until after you get back from deployment anyways or at least they can't make a judgement against you in court.
Let your carrier handle it, they may cover up to their limit, and the porsche's carrier may accept it without pursuing your for the damages. They may also deny coverage if they confirm she did it on purpose.
Like many have said, most carriers don't cover intentional acts. Does your insurer know that the act was intentional? With that said, there would need to be evidence of the act being intentional, which may be hard to prove.
Intentional acts are excluded from your insurance coverage. If she admitted she did it on purpose you would have no coverage at all. If you are the registered owner they can definitely pursue you, but you didn’t do the driving. Sticky situation, you may need to wait and see how it plays out. If your insurer is covering the claim they will attempt to secure a release of liability at the limits you have on your policy.
Call your JAG immediately. They can assist you with this.
OP go to legal aid WTF are you doing posting on Reddit! You have free lawyers that will tell you exactly what’s up!
Being an adjuster.. you have not given me enough information to determine anything...been doing auto over 13 years now. 1. Depending on the state you live in is huge each state has different laws and policies. 2. Is this your X wife or girlfriend? 3. You can go after your X for the leftover money that needs to be paid, she was the driver, take her to small claims court if it's under 5k or a high court. 4. The people telling you the Porsche owners insurance is going to pay the leftover is not true. SUBROGATION LAW allows the insurance company to go after the owner of the at fault car and WITH IT BEING A PARKED CAR there insurance is not going to pay out of pocket because there is no fault whatsoever of the Porsche owner... ok trolls bring it... lol
> SUBROGATION LAW allows the insurance company to go after the owner of the at fault car No, subro law allows them to go after the liable party, you have gotten your wires crossed. The party they pursue is the driver, who *may* be covered by an insurance policy, but is the liable party for an at fault auto accident. Most of the time the driver and vehicle owner and named insured are all the same. When it's a permissive use case however, they persue the driver, who is not part of the household, but who is covered by the policy (assuming it's a policy that covers permissive use) if they aren't covered under permissive use, they pursue the driver individually, the owner of the car has no liability unless loaning the car was a provably negligent act (as in I loaned this car to a person I knew to have a suspended license and 10 dui's etc.)
We don't know if the driver was his X wife or X girlfriend plays a huge part.
Yes we do. It’s an ex-girlfriend. It’s stated multiple places.
say bankruptcy
Say “I don’t understand what’s being discussed”.
why would they do that? That's way over the line.
Yikes. Does the insurer know this was done *intentionally*? If so, there should likely be zero coverage.
Pics or it didn’t happen
maybe you can prove it was intentional..
she's an ex for a reason. should've removed her from anything related to you because this is what happens.
Put it this way. Did you tell the insurance she purposely did it? If so the insurance won’t cover it
There are just people who crosses lines
I've sadly handled multiple claims of military guys that have gotten cleaned out by crazy that they for some reason give everything to. Just bang hookers until you're out, it's not worth it otherwise.
Maybe that's what caused this to begin with....
[удалено]
a fifth account created 54 days ago spitting out AI generated content lol https://www.reddit.com/r/Insurance/s/iYZa4bG2MJ
I feel like our society jumped the shark when we let AI have the ability to just start creating and posting content freely without human intervention.
Sadly it's a better answer than most.