Can you help settle an argument?
Let’s say Jane owns a car, and is insured. Joe is not on her policy, nor does he have a policy of his own. Jane lends Joe her car. Joe gets into an accident. How liable is Jane? Any chance she could go to jail?
If the answer is “It depends on the state where Jane lives”, then let’s say it’s Massachusetts.
FWIW, I am neither Jane nor Joe.
Most states require proof of insurance to get a tag license.
Liability insurance is an absolute necessity to drive.
Comprehensive insurance depends on the value and age of the auto.
YES Jane would be liable for damage done by her car by any other driver in most states. I am of the opinion the driver would be liable for personal damage/injury.
Jane needs to check with her insurance agent. IANAL but I think Jane may have civil liability because it’s her insurance policy but you don’t go to jail for civil actions. If Joe kills someone and is convicted of manslaughter then he would have criminal liability. YMMV, caveat emptor.
She did. They were going to increase her premiums by $400 a year for four years. Since Joe will be getting his own insurance soon, they’ve arranged that he will pay it instead. But I have a feeling that the insurance company is just trying to make this go away painlessly. After all, the accident was pretty minor.
I guess I’m taking a “what if” scenario. What if Joe had caused a major accident? What if someone was killed? Is it still a civil matter for Jane, or could it potentially become a criminal matter?
I am not 100% sure what you are trying to find out.
Will there be coverage when Joe was in an accident? The answer is Usually. Most quality auto insurance policies will extend coverage if you loan your car to a friend. I do know of at least one company coughMercurycough that excludes all drivers except the named insured. So as far as coverage goes read the policy. If the policy covers, will both liability and physical damage coverage apply? Yes I would think so, but read the policy.
If the question is: Can the insurance company jack her rates for an accident? The answer would be unless it conflicts with Mass law, yes.
IANAL, but in dealing with insurance on our cars and our kids, insurance goes with the car, not the driver. There is usually a primary driver assigned, and if Joe was actually driving the car most of the time, there could be an issue - but that does not seem to be the case here.
I don’t see how Jane could face any criminal charges, unless there was some major negligence in the upkeep of the car. I’m assuming Joe is a licensed driver. I don’t know what you mean about Joe getting his own insurance - is he getting a car, or is he going to be added to Jane’s policy as a primary driver?
We have 3 cars, but even when my oldest daughter was away in college, without a car, she had to be the primary driver of one of them. We got a break because she was away, but it was still expensive. As for the $400 increase, I can’t even begin to guess at the ways of rate setting, but maybe it threw her into another pool. When I was in grad school, my car parked in Champaign Illinois got hit (by a drunk driver) when I was in New York, despite it being parked off the street. My rates went down after the accident. 
So I’ve stopped trying to understand.
Rick…Viking, too.
IF IF IF IF the policy allaws coverage for a “Permissive User,” and IF the permissive user is not *excluded *by name on the policy, then I’ll go out on a limb and say, yeah: If Joe is driving Jane’s car as a permissive user, then any damage/injury he does in that car will be covered UP TO THE LIMITS OF THE POLICY.
If damages exceed those limits, all hell is at risk of breaking loose. It’s possible only Joe will be liable for the excess damages because HE is the one who done the deed. But if it can be proven that Jane knew Joe was a maniac, but lent him the car anyway, there could be a “Negligent Entrustment” suit against HER as the owner of the car. Doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. Jail time for Jane due to NE? Not likely. Jail time for Joe when he mows down 14 kids at a bus stop? Grease him up.
You were not at fault in the accident, and so your rates did not reflect the accident because you as a risk were not necessarily any different apart from being unlucky. Their decrease was coincedental, it was probably already scheduled even before the loss.
I was under the impression that driving without insurance was against the law. I was also under the impression that the operator of the vehicle had to be insured to drive that particular vehicle, and if he was not, was doing something against the law. Further, I was under the impression that if the owner of the vehicle was enabling the uninsured driver to do something against the law, she’d be just as liable.
But it looks like I’m wrong.
Yep. In MA, you are required to show proof of insurance to register a car, not to get a driver’s license. You can have a valid driver’s license without owning a car and therefore not have any insurance.
A policy must list (a) all usual drivers of a car, and (b) all licensed drivers in a household, even if they are not usual drivers of the car. If you neglect to list a required person, and that person has an accident while driving, your carrier can deny coverage. So even though my wife and I pretty much never swap cars, each of us is listed on the other’s policy since we live together. Assuming Jane and Joe don’t live together, and Joe doesn’t borrow Jane’s car all the time, there doesn’t appear to be any wrongdoing here.
They calculate the rates for the worst driver listed on a policy, unless that person has their own car and own policy. So if 2 people have 1 car, the rates would be based on the SDIP step of the worse driver. If 2 people living together each have their own car and own policy, they each pay based on their own SDIP step, even if the other has a higher SDIP rating.
I’m not sure why they were going to increase her policy $400. In MA, they can only increase your rates if your SDIP step goes up. It may be that they were going to require her to list Joe as a driver on her policy, making her now pay for his higher SDIP step, but now that he’s getting his own car, she doesn’t have to? Pure speculation on this last part.
Driving an unissured vehicle is illegal. Like others have said its the car that is issued not the driver. A police officer will only care if the car is insured. He will not look deeper to see if it is permissible under the policy for others to drive. Also if you were to drive a friends car it is up to you to make sure it is insured before you drive it. You can be issued a summons for driving an uninsured vehicle. That takes care of the law. Civil liability is another matter and for that you need to look at the policy.
That is why I used the term “quality” to describe the auto policy. and I did say read the damn policy for the for sure answer. Policy limits would of course apply no matter who is driving the car. My bad for not mentioning this.
tdn If the policy extended coverage to other drivers then Joe would be insured when he drove her car. No law was broken.
Now, now, they’re ALL quality policies. Just some crummy companies who know what you’ll need and write that out of the policy–very clearly under the “exclusions” heading in the “When & Where Coverage Applies” section of the “COVERAGES NOT ESTOPPED BARRING OTHER RESTRICTIONS” chapter. (simplified English version) 
Just felt like pushing it because lately it seems like I get a “What If…” customer who probes for the right way to phrase a question in order to get me to reconsider denying a claim that he hasn’t purchased coverage for. Simple stuff. Like customers who haven’t purchased Collision for their 1994 Cavalier and want me to pay for the car when they run it into a tree that was maliciously planted too close to the roadway 85 years ago…by Indians, I guess. Before the city got built.
Didn’t mean to discredit or otherwise slag your post. 
:d
I asked a somewhat different (but similar question) when I got my first car insurance policy yesterday. The insurance companies I’d been phoning had wanted to know who was in the household and whether I wanted them to be covered, which made sense, except then I wondered how things like “designated drivers” worked.
Basically, since both my brother and I still live with the parents, I either have to specifically include or specifically exclude my brother. In the first case, my insurance goes up from ~1500 to ~2100 for most companies, in the second, if my brother ever drives my car, even 0.0000001% of the time, he’s not covered.
OTOH, so long as I’m not making a regular habit of it, my friend can borrow my car and still be covered, and any designated driver (I think the agent said this was specifically mentioned in the policy fineprint) is also covered.
(BTW, I live in Edmonton, and the insurance company I’m buying from is AMA).