We have two daughters, aged 21 and 19. I feel your pain. They’re expensive little buggers.
Our friend, who is an insurance underwriter here in Ohio, didn’t get a separate policy on his kids until they got their own cars. He told us that they’d be covered by our policy until they turned 18. Even though he was an insurance professional and undoubtedly knew his stuff, we opted to take the safe route and insure them individually.
Drivers Ed is required here and he already took it except for the 6 hours driving time.
He’s 18 and still hasn’t gotten his license because he doesn’t want to drive.
And yes he’s too old to adopt out but I think about renting him out, he will do laundry, yard work and carry heavy things around for you.
In my experience, the larger companies all work pretty much the same way–they got big by being fair with the peoples (if mean as hell to each other behind the scenes). It’s the smaller companies that are more likely to bite you.
Here’s what my policy with Amica says:
“We will not pay for a collision or limited collision loss for an accident which occurs while your auto is being operated by a household member who is not listed as an operator on your policy. Payment is withheld when the household member, if listed, would require the payment of additional premium on your policy because the household member would be classified as an inexperienced operator or would require payment of additional premium on your policy under the Merit Rating Plan.”
This means that they won’t pay to fix or replace my car if my kid is in an accident but he isn’t listed on the policy. They will pay the people he hits because that is covered under a different part of the policy which doesn’t have this exclusion.
It’s very important to be aware that there is a huge difference between what different companies charge for new/young drivers. I literally saved about 70% by “switching to Geico” when I added my first kid to my policy, and Travelers was also in that same ballpark.
Interesting. I wanted to exclude one of my kids (he’s away at school, but not far enough away for the insurance company) and my company (Geico) didn’t allow it.
If you exclude a driver and they drive your vehicle anyway, you’d have to either have reported the vehicle stolen and press charges or they deny coverage and you’re completely on your own.
Of course, each company, policy, state is different.
I live in Virginia. State Farm is my insurance company.
My 17-year-old daughter just got her license last month. I called State Farm the next day to talk about adding her. The rep told me that she was automatically covered if she drives our cars. She also quoted me the semi-annual cost of adding her. I said, “If she’s automatically covered, why do I need to add her to the policy?” She said, “You don’t. But some people do it.” I asked what is the benefit to me if I add her to the policy for what would be a few hundred dollars a year. She said something to the effect of, “Well, I represent an insurance company so I’m not going to advise you not to list her, but you don’t have to for her to be covered.”
I’m still trying to decide what to do.
You might want to call State Farm again and double check that answer with another rep. It doesn’t really make sense.
She might be automatically covered when driving your car, if what you were told is correct (I’m not saying it is or isn’t). But what about if she is driving another car?
Policies I’ve had extend liability coverage (as secondary coverage) to any car that the named insured might be driving. (This might not be true of all policies in all states.) If grandma asks your daughter to run to the store and gives her the keys to her car, should your daughter have to ask to see the canceled check to prove grandma has her coverage up-to-date? What if she goes out with some friends in one of their cars and the owner of the car is too drunk/tired/injured to drive back home and your daughter volunteers to drive? What if the friend forgot to send in their insurance renewal? Then what if your daughter runs into a school bus?
Brace yourself. The answer is it’s a social conscience thing. In order for an insurance company to remain solvent it needs to collect premiums that reflect the risks they insure. Inexperienced drivers, especially new, young drivers, statistically have greater frequency and severity of accidents. Therefore, they represent a greater risk and rightfully cost more to insure. If the correct premiums are not being collected for the young drivers, they will still have the accidents but the money to pay for them comes from the premiums paid by us old codgers who don’t have wrecks. Basically, everyone else is paying a bit more than they should because not everyone plays by the rules. It’s sort of like game theory except the majority of policies out there are reluctant to hold their customers accountable for the ‘oversight,’ apart from saying, “Aha! So you do have a kid driver! Here’s your new rates.”
Like I mentioned earlier, not listing the younguns now might have an adverse effect on what they pay for insurance, initially, when they get out on their own because they will have no way to prove they were insured previously. But the ‘penalties’ a 21 year old might pay will probably not even come close to what you’ll pay to insure them while they’re young.
Social conscience is all that makes you list them up-front–apart from potential exclusions on your policy like Gus Gusterson pointed out.
The only time you might be able to get away from not adding him is he doesn’t live with you. Like, he lives with his Mom 50 weeks a year and visits you for 2. Then, you’re likely cool.
In this case, pay up. Sorry.
Was it just because she turned 16, or did she also get a license/permit when she turned 16? I grew up and still live in NYC. When I was a kid, my parents’ car insurance company started to constantly ask if I had a license/permit after I turned 16. ( they knew my birthdate because my parents had life insurance with the same company) But they didn’t raise the rate, because I didn’t get a permit until much later.
I added my 22 year old son when he got his license 3 months ago. It’s only $600 a year- I’m happy he waited so long.
It depends on what your policy reads and the laws of your state. Right now she’s probably considered a “resident family member” which affords her coverage. But that only lasts as long as she lives with you. If she goes off to college then, on Winter Break, she comes back and drives your car, your insurance company could institute a “drop back” clause which means she is only covered up to state minimums.
Also, sometimes agents don’t know what they’re talking about. Talk to an adjuster if possible: they are the ones who decide who pays what in an accident.
You mean other than being exactly what my friend was told which prompted this whole question in the first place?
Did you read the thread? The jury still seems to be out with some saying no problem and others saying they are screwed.
Again, just in case anyone (else) is just skimming… I don’t plan to do this, I’m asking about the advise my friend was given.
Sorry, that sounded very snippy (and I guess it was). My point was that the two reps for big insurance say they would cover him. One person said their agent told them the exact same thing, and others have quoted their policy stating that they would not be covered at all.
Apparently like so many other contractual things there is no one correct answer.
Indeed. It looks to depend on:
I agree completely with points 1 and 2. Point 3 however has examples of my friend and CookingWithGas saying that they were advised by agents from the insurance company so I don’t think it can be classified as deceit.
The question of whether or not there’s deceit involved in either case likely depends on the laws in the states in question, and / or the rules of the insurance company in question (i.e., Points 1 and 2).
I didn’t mean to imply that all 3 points needed to be simultaneously met. 
In other words, if Points 1 and / or 2 allow you to not have to include your teen driver, then you don’t need to worry about committing Point 3.
It would not surprise me to find that there are less-than-scrupulous insurance agents who gloss over the existence of teen drivers in their clients’ households, because they know that their company’s rates are particularly punitive to such households, and they don’t want to lose their clients’ business. So, there may be deception going on, but it may be at the instigation of the agent.
Good point, but it also looks like scrupulous reps like Jester and Rand say they would assume I made a “mistake” and cover me anyway… sounds like it is even corporate policy in at least some cases.
Oh yeah… and screw that whole “Social Consciousnesses” thing… we’re talking my insurance rates here! I never had a wreck when I was young and I’m sure my Dad still paid through the teeth… don’t I get a credit of some kind?
One other issue is that if we’re only talking liability coverage, in most states insurance companies are very limited in what liability claims they can deny. They might be able to deny a collision claim, but they generally won’t be able to deny a liability one even if it’s a driver you were supposed to claim or who is specifically excluded. They will most likely drop you or at least make you add your teen afterwards, but with only liability coverage you can probably get away with letting your teen drive without adding them until after they crash.