Speaking of rip offs

Why do we have to pay insurance policies on each vehicle that we own? why can't we just pay an insurance policy on the driver? Another scam! Any one ever think about that?

I hate insurance...... its just a way for lawyers to get paid.

Think about it this way. If you just paid on the driver, said driver could own multiple vehicles.

That being the case, driver A could wreck his only car, and his wreck would be covered by his 'singular' policy on himself.

On the other hand, what happens when driver B has multiple vehicles, and wrecks 4 of them within a month? He has the same 'simgular' policy on himself that driver A has. In other words, his pay in amount has been far less, therefore he's not going to have enough insurance to cover all 4 accidents.

The only way for driver B to have enough insurance, is if driver A pays the same amount as driver B. Thing is driver A only has one vehicle, so he is now paying for the other guy to have 4 vehicles.

Does this sound anything even close to fair?

No, it doesn't, but that's the very direction our Government is trying to push us. It's called socialism.......and it doesn't work long before it implodes........

I have asked that for years. Liability insurance should be on the driver. IF you want the car insured then put the comp/collision on the car.

Ask for "broadform named operator coverage". It does what you are looking for. But it only covers the "named operator". And it's only liability insurance. If you get in an accident, your car is not covered. If someone else is driving your car, this insurance doesn't cover him, and if he gets in an accident, you can stil be sued.

onefarmer- "Liability insurance should be on the driver. IF you want the car insured then put the comp/collision on the car."

That's the way it has been in Kentucky since I started driving.

I can just pay for Liability insurance which would pay only the damages I do to others vehicle/property. Whereas, Comprehensive/full coverage insurance will also pay for damages to my vehicle/property plus the damages covered by the Liability coverage.

HTH

big fred-Question...What about getting the vehicle tagged? Here, I have to provide "proof of Insurance" for the vehicle....

I've been exploring my options on auto and home insurance, time to re-new. Trying to keep the premiums limited to what I can afford, not easy. The old pickup runs from $239./yr to $638./yr and the house runs from $644./yr to $1580./yr and one company wouldn't even quote a number on the house because the "rebuild cost would be more than the value". Trying to compare apples to apples so all policies are as equal as I can get them to agree to. As you may expect, the lower truck cost is bundled with a higher property cost and vice a versa. Separating property and truck companies just raises premiums, seems they want to make a profit. As to the OP's original question, I asked that of insurance companies back when I started driving fifty years ago, it was the same then.

Dunno much about it except that Vern Fonk insurance advertises it here in Warshinton, so I looked it up on the interwebs. I have normal insurance on all my vehicles. But I would imagine that your license agency is concerned with liability coverage, which broadform offers. Questions like yours would vary by state, so I'd say ask the license agency.

For liability insurance some models are way more likely to be in an accident than others.As for collision
insurance wouldn't make sense for the cost to insure a $50,000 car be the same as for a $10,000 car.

Because that's the best way to keep uninsured drivers off the road. Most uninsured drivers don't bother with driver's licenses, either. But if you make insurance a condition of getting plates on the vehicle, it's pretty difficult to drive around without insurance.

I understand that a business can buy fleet coverage here. No idea if it is a better deal in your case. We can also drop the insurance off a car or a truck for say six months , and then put it back on when you need it . Good example would be a grain truck, you might want to have it covered from June to December only,so why pay the whole year on a truck that will just sit in the shed. Banks and insurance companies rule our lives ,one way or another.

(quoted from post at 00:02:15 03/23/16) onefarmer- "Liability insurance should be on the driver. IF you want the car insured then put the comp/collision on the car."

That's the way it has been in Kentucky since I started driving.

I can just pay for Liability insurance which would pay only the damages I do to others vehicle/property. Whereas, Comprehensive/full coverage insurance will also pay for damages to my vehicle/property plus the damages covered by the Liability coverage.

HTH

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's the way it works--at least in theory.

yes, but the Ins Co, has figured out that person A is a free loader with gullible friends. He borrows a car from a new friend each weekend to run shine and generally totals all of them because he drinks more of his product than he delivers and has a passion for the Dukes of Hazard show. Just saying one person with no cars doesn't mean they'll wreck less.

I hadn't given much thought to it before but it seems if your a person who doesn't own a car but wants to drive borrowed cars you should/must have insurance.

The daughter of a neighbor of mine fell on hard times a few years back and moved back home to take care of her parents (now only mother). Worked out good for both parties. She sold her car because it was expensive and not very practical and her parents have 2 good SUVs. Her mother can no longer drive, so the daughter is the only driver and her mother owns both cars. If I heard the daughter correctly the other day, the Dept of Motor Vehicles required her to show proof of liability insurance to renew her drivers license. I'm sure her mother has collision insurance on the vehicles.

Hi, we have provincial ins here that allows you to have normal coverage on road for a period then storage ins at a small fee for a period. Eg: a grain truck. Ed Will Oliver BC

As far as proof of insurance to get drivers liscence or tags for the vehicle goes it is a joke here in Ohio. Just got my tags and never a word was mentioned about insurance.

Minnesota used to have proof of insurance before getting a vehicle licence. Went away from that for 20 years.

Its back now this year.

So, on TV I see 5 times a day commercial, mini mo, insurance for dead beats, $20 down gets you an insurance card for 6 months, make payments to keep the insurance. It isn't even hidden in the commercial, the point is pay us $20 to get the card you need to show, don't bother paying us any more, we make the $20 off you, you get the card to show. End of transaction, no actual insurance happens.

Sheez.

Paul

What's worse than that is, we, the people (taxpayers), own the roads. We bought them with our taxes, yet, we have to pay to drive on them by "buying" a driver's license!

In Texas house and senate are owned by the insurance lobby.

Its very easy to drive without insurance and get your liscense renewed without insurance. I don't advocate this, we have customers that do this, they will buy a car, put a years insurance on it, get their proof of ins card, get their plates, then drop the insurance. If they are stopped they show the cops the ins card that says they have insurance. works till they are in a crash but they don't have anything so they don't care if they get sued. Same way with plates. Example-they have an old blue ford that is shot, they will park it in the back yard, buy another newer blue ford, take the plates of the 1st one and put them on the one they just bought. They will continue to renew the plates on the 1st car, thus cheating the state out of the sales tax on the newer car along with the reg fees. Works till ,they get caught. I have spoken to the state legislature about it and is gets pushed to the back so it is never addressed.

Yes but if driver B crashes that many vehicles then his personal insurance goes up and if he can't afford it then he can't drive. If he crashes that many maybe he shouldn't drive anyway.

hd6gtom's post should be deleted before my neighbors read it and get ideas

(quoted from post at 14:53:54 03/23/16) As far as proof of insurance to get drivers liscence or tags for the vehicle goes it is a joke here in Ohio. Just got my tags and never a word was mentioned about insurance.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read what you signed? It says that you have the required coverage or a bond posted.

W_B from Ohio.

(quoted from post at 14:57:54 03/23/16) Minnesota... So, on TV I see 5 times a day commercial, mini mo, insurance for dead beats, $20 down gets you an insurance card for 6 months, make payments to keep the insurance. It isn't even hidden in the commercial, the point is pay us $20 to get the card you need to show, don't bother paying us any more, we make the $20 off you, you get the card to show. End of transaction, no actual insurance happens. Paul

Click to expand...

Actually there probably is a policy activated and it's probably one that only provides the minimum financial responsibility liability limit for the state. Usually it's pretty low. MN is a pretty active insurance regulator and I very much doubt they would let this go if it was fraudulent in any way.

Many states have reporting required by insurance companies to verify a policy was issued and to notify when it is cancelled. It's an unholy mess if the customer doesn't pay, company reports the cancellation, then they pay but get stopped before the reinstatement report gets sent then they are stuck sitting and get pizzed at the company. Takes time to get this stuff processed from the company end, and God only knows what happens when it hits the state.

I agree, liability portion should be only one time, not for each vehicle you own, and you can only drive one at a time anyhow. Good example is my daily drive is liability only insured, yet I also pay liability on a newer truck that sits over 90% of the time in my garage. Pretty sweet deal for my insurance company since there is very little risk of it damaging anyone elses property. At one time, I had an older muscle car that was not driven during the winter months, and I actually dropped liability coverage during the winter, then reinstated in the spring, and kept a stated value coverage on it all year. I recall I had to switch companies to get that coverage, and it was really fairly inexpensive in comparison to regular comprehensive coverage. Might be a good option if a vehicle is paid for, as the lenders want to see that comp coverage on their vehicles. No doubt, insurance is a huge rip-off to most, but especially those who own lower mileage older vehicles carrying full coverage insurance. You literally pay for the vehicle in their rates in a short time, then if you do total the vehicle they want to pay what amounts to scrap price for it.

(quoted from post at 22:53:04 03/22/16) I hate insurance...... its just a way for lawyers to get paid.

Click to expand...

No, you got it backwards. The thieving lawyers figured out a way to suck insurance dry. Your rates are going up because lawyers make the rules. State regulators are controlled by by lawyers, politicians make the laws to protect and benefit lawyers cause they are themselves mostly lawyers.

The lawyers have educated people, they advertise on TV, so the mentality is to sue at the drop of the hat. That costs big bucks to defend a case that is a fraud from the beginning, but it is cheaper to pay the crooks off than to fight it in court and loose.

I worked in the ins. industry for 35 years ( crop insurance). We never, never tried to get out of paying a legitimate claim. NEVER. I always preached to my adjusters. "if there is any doubt, always lean on the side of the customer" We overpaid a lot of claims in an attempt to be fair.

When there was a dispute or the customer was being unreasonable, it was because they didn't know what they had bought, or how insurance worked.

We never cheated anyone. Never.

And I am confident saying that. Can't speak for other companies, but I know how I worked it.

Gene

state insurance laws vary- anybody drive in a 'no fault' state? Wisconsin has a SR22 insurance for 'high risk' drivers and some others due to occupation where the vehicles may not have insurance. The SR22 has a option of 'owned and unowned' vehicles liability, I know a lady who does valet parking at the local casino, she has that kind of insurance and jot the job because of it, didn't have to wait a month doing half pay kitchen washing. Another guy does some salvage of cars work and some recovery and repairs- some, maybe a lot of the cars to be repaired aren't insured by owners so when he does test drives he need to be able to show insurance after brakes fail and he hits the stop signs- That is where his SR22 -originally for his not covered damage to city property , get SR22 or lose you drivers license so paid the premium- came in real handy. Lots of cars running around state- estimate is 14% are NOT insured by owner and Milwaukee with its EPA inspections gets worse figures for uninsured, no proof of insurance as recently passed in law. 'Financial Responsibility' law is still the basis, the 'proof of insurance' was a add to, implies as pre accident intent to be financially responsible- and avoid $500.00 ticket. 'Owner responsibility' for insurance instead of driver was administrative easier deal, also case law. 'Owner' of car or livestock in fence law state is liable for damages- driver of 'borrowed with permission of owner' may be held liable for some damages, get the fines for actual driving-- but sometimes easier to track 'owner of record'. And in no fault states the owner of vehicle is responsible for fixing his own damage up to a certain amount- %5000.00 is one I was told about, lawyers hate that, can't get quick settlements and 25 to 40% of settlements from the other parties insurance. I have a good record and couple motorcycles, van and car-- but since I don't have a drunk driving charge that would require me to have the SR22, can't get it easy so I can drop the vehicle insurance, just show SR22 like the Valet parker and scrap, salvage and unlicensed car dealer skipping titles dealer has. Insurance outfits in no fault states can make money--but the lawyers can't get easy money trying to file frivolous suits for damages. S. California, Los Angeles area estimates of lack of insurance is around double national, 2012 figures was 29% and was partially from court records, ticket issues and part from insurance payouts for uninsured motorists. Bunch of uninsured and unlicensed drivers- about 1/2 were citizens of US, not just the 'illegals' in S. California. Some other cities like Milwaukee have similar problem populace for various reasons. Wonder what the Amish have to put up with? RN

This has bugged me for years.