Not the license, the registration. In California all insurance companies are required to report to DMV (electronically) any policy that lapses or is cancelled, as well as any policy that is started. The vehicle’s registration is placed in suspension upon receipt of a report of lapse or cancellation and remains in that state until a report of new coverage is received (or other proof thereof).
:rolleyes:
Yeah… ok. That must have been it.
The OP likely lucked out when it comes to the legal consequences for driving an uninsured/unregistered vehicle. If the police had showed up on scene he’d have been given a citation for driving an unregistered vehicle and they would have taken the car to impound until proof of insurance/registration could be provided and sent the OP home on foot. Since the police did not catch the OP in the act they aren’t going to bother or can’t chase him down for a citation.
At this point it’s entirely a civil matter. The OP or his insurance needs to cover the cost of any damage or injury caused by his negligence.
They crush it? Wouldn’t it make better sense financially and environmentally to sell it?
That’s not true. The op states they rear ended the other driver, making the op 100% at fault. The other driver has no agreement with the OP for “coverage” or any kind of deductible.
If the other driver takes her car to her own insurance and says “here’s what happened, give me a rental and fix it” she will initially pay her deductible to her insurance company, but will receive a full refund when her insurance company collects from the responsible party (the op).
My guess is that these are cars that aren’t worth it for the owner to pay the fines, towing and storage charges. And the authorities aren’t going to be able to sell them for anything much. So the authorities crush them instead.
Sounds like he was BS’ing you.
If you had the license plate number, any cop or DMV office could locate the Insurance Company for you – probably, there was no insurance at all.
They don’t have auctions on your side of the pond? That’s what would happen to a vehicle in that situation in the US.
I don’t know which side of the pond you’re on, but I’m in the US.
Legal advice is best suited to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Correct. I should have been clearer. My point was that if he is essentially judgement proof, or doesn’t cop to the being at fault, or cannot be found, she would be stuck paying.
I did that. Took him to court and everything. I won a ruling in the case but the guy I hit, who didnt have isurance, was on disability so I couldnt get any money from him.
Thing is I couldnt find the cars owner because he lived in Missouri and I live in Kansas and the guy was a greasy, sneaky, bastard with multiple addresses and I couldnt nail him down to get his real address. I tried his place of business listed but even that was wrong and since he lived in another state our local law enforcement couldnt get at him easily.
There is that. That could happen.
But when the accusation would be that the police siezed the vehicle in order to make a profit. The police know all the procedures, rules, dates … and people… and orchestrate the auction so that the police then go to the auction to buy the vehicle cheap…
So when governments sieze/confiscate vehicles they usually destroy them … so as to make it clear its not a profit making exercise.
But specifically in the UK the excercise may be to prevent low value vehicles being driven by people who can’t even afford insurance… in that case its an excercise aimed to put the vehicle off the road… not straight back into the ownership of another person who can’t afford a better vehicle or its insurance.
No, it isn’t. In the dynamics of lending a car, the assumption of insurance is part and parcel of the deal. (or else, the fact of no insurance should be made known by the owner. It is a crime to lend a vehicle without there being insurance, in my state.) Asking a friend to check for his own insurance is like asking the friend if the car has an engine or a transmission.
Also, had OP asked the friend, and the friend checked, it would be the OP’s fault if he didn’t ask the owner to call the insurance company to make sure it was up to date; then, having the friend call the Insurance Commission to make sure that the Insurance Co. was licensed in this state.
You’re putting too much responsibility on the OP, when it doesn’t belong there.
There was a deal by us where someone rented a car and then took that car out and had an accident. The person didnt have insurance and the car rental company refused to pay saying it was the drivers fault.
I’m not sure how that one ended.
It does belong with the OP though. While the owner is at fault for not having insurance, the OP is also at fault for not being aware of this. If she’d been pulled over and gotten a ticket for no insurance, it would have been her paying the penalty, not the owner.
They DO receive notification from an insurance company when the insurance policy is allowed to lapse… They then contact the owner and notify him that the registration on the vehicle will be suspended, absent proof that another policy has been bought. And yearly re-registration IS contingent upon the ability to show that a policy is in force.
I’m with handsomeharry on this. Whether I ask someone to borrow their car, or they offer to let me borrow their car, it would never occur to me to ask or check if the car is insured. I’d expect them to say something like, “You can borrow the car, but you should be aware that it’s currently uninsured.”
I’d think the OP’s friend may be in some trouble for not having at least liability insurance for situations just like this; at least here in Texas, it’s mandatory for all vehicle owners.
But, I’m pretty sure that if push came to shove in court, the OP would be on the hook for the damage to both the car he was driving and the other car in the accident.
Which, children, is why you either carry your own insurance (what most people with cars do), or make sure your friend has some.
It’s required here in Minnesota, too. But about 25-30% of the cars on the road don’t have any, despite the law. And they are usually people who it’s real hard to collect damages from, too.
That’s why a much better system would be an Insurance-at-the-Pump system, where xxcents is asdded to the price of each gallon of gas purchased, to pay for a basic-level liability insurance coverage for every car on the road. Drivers would still have to purchase their own insurance for higher liability coverage, and for collision coverage, etc. But every car that uses gas would have at least some liability insurance. (We could probably pay for a chunck of this by the reduction in time that police spend looking for and ticketing uninsured drivers.
But, of course, the big insurance companies are greatly opposed to this – would cut into their profits.