Yeah, vilified for making sure that her son was driving a street legal car. What a bitch.
I would agree with ThelmaLou that it would probably have been better for her to require her son to purchase his own insurance or negotiate with her the terms of her paying his insurance before the car was allowed on the road. But as it stands, I don’t fault her for taking steps to make sure that her son was on the up and up even if he and grandma didn’t particularly care.
If the kid wasn’t at fault, shouldn’t the other driver’s insurance be paying?
And the gifted is not entitled to insurance claims for something which they never paid into.
None of it belongs to the kid, she insured the car the pay out is hers. The kid got a very valuable lesson about car insurance.
Kids can not legally own ANYTHING. And she is his mother and makes the rules. She has decided it is best for him to not have a car. She can legally do this.
Respect her wishes. FYI - I agree with mom. I would rather see the kid alive and carless.
Like many of these situations, everyone involved appears to be actively working at being a jerk or an idiot, or both.
Jerk.
Idiot.
Jerk.
Both.
FWIW the solution of paying mom back for the premiums, giving the balance to the son, and he can pay his own damn insurance from now on or take the bus, is reasonable. Therefore no one involved will consider it.
Regards,
Shodan
If the mother wants to justify her actions using this logic, she can do so. But then she can’t turn around and complain that her son refuses to have anything to do with her.
Estrangement is what happens when people’s ideas about entitlement blinds them to the bigger picture. Hopefully that money is worth it to her. It wouldn’t be for me.
The other driver’s insurance will be paying. The problem here is who gets the check once they issue it.
Assuming the “kid” had a drivers license when given the car 3 years ago, he’s almost certainly over 18 by now, so none of what you’re saying applies.
Mom’s insurance covers losses under the policy, and then proceeds against the other driver to subrogate.
Standard practice. When someone hits you, you don’t have to wait for THEIR insurance company to pay up.
Mom should keep everything. She paid the insurance to keep the kid on the road, with no likelyhood of being paid out. Her future insurance payments have now gone up by an unquantifiable amount as the insurance companies sure won’t tell her exactly how her premium is calculated. If she’s feeling generous, it might be a good idea to buy kid a cheapo lw insurance car. Kid pays for own insurance, although as a young driver with an accident behind him his insurance is likely to be sky high. Tough.
The way I read the OP, the son is a young adult, not a minor. He received the car 3 years ago, which means he was probably 16 at a minimum.
But even if we were talking about a true kid, I disagree with this. Just because it might be legal for a parent to act a certain way doesn’t mean its right.
Well, I think the money should go to grandma, who is welcome to turn right around to give it to the kid. I think buying a car for someone (outright- no loan) is a huge gift that should be treated a bit different than buying someone something smaller.
The son would be a giant dillhole if he did so.
Not any more so than she is. She’s not entitled to his love, just as he’s not entitled to any insurance money. Sound petty? Well, this tit-for-tat cycle of pettiness is probably responsible for 85% of destroyed relationships. The only way to break of it by being the bigger person and acting less than selfishly.
I disagree. His refusal to pay his own insurance definitely makes him the bigger dillhole.
This isn’t pettiness. He did nothing for that money. Had she not paid his premiums for him, he would not have a car, he would not have an insurance payout, and he would have been assessed a fine or worse for driving without insurance. He should be grateful that she has shielded him from the consequences of his inaction and a few months of riding the bus while he saves up to get a beater won’t kill him.
In his defense, I’ll bet he refused knowing it would be paid anyway. In Pennsylvania, at least, you can’t legally drive without insurance. Would he have refused to pay if that meant his car just sat, unused?
ETA: wtf is a “dillhole” and why does my iPad wanna correct it to “dill hole”? And what’s a “dill hole”?
Why does she care about what her EX’S family thinks?
She insured the car, therefore she gets the money.
However, I would probably take back the premiums and whatever the increase in insurance would be and give the rest to my son, simply because he’s my son.
Everyone involved is being a bit a dillhole, but Mom keeping the entirety of the insurance money is complete horseshit. It’s a cash grab, plain and simple.
Shodan is dead right; everyone involved acted stupidly, greedily, jerkishly, or a combination of two or all three of these things.