4 ms·

I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be the

by bcl 14y ago

I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be the one to pay for the injuries.

steve8918 14y ago
If the person didn't have their own car, I would be surprised if they had their own car insurance. The victims could sue the estate, but there might not be a lot of money in it.
- delinka 14y ago
  In my state, you can't get auto insurance without a car. You can be a licensed driver, you can have money to hand the insurance company for your premium, but if you don't own a car, you can't get car insurance. I don't know if you could get general liability insurance that would also cover you driving other people's cars. But if it's the car that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be listed on the policy? The way I understand it is even if I'm not listed on someone's policy and I'm driving their car, their auto insurance covers my fuck up when I cause an accident. Doesn't seem right, but I suppose that's the way it works.
  - jacquesgt 14y ago
    When you're driving someone else's car, their collision/comprehensive insurance covers damage to their car (although there's a chance their insurance company will decline to pay or decide to sue you depending on the circumstances). Your liability insurance covers personal injury and property damage that you cause to others. Drivers are listed for two reasons. The first is because a big chunk of car insurance is liability insurance. The second is because the probability of the insurance company having to pay to repair or replace your car depends on the likelihood one of the drivers will cause an accident. This is all made more complicated by the fact that personal injury lawsuits are a numbers game. If the driver didn't have insurance and their estate has very little money, it doesn't matter that making them liable is a slam dunk case. It's not worth the effort. On the other hand, if the car owner has insurance, is alive, and has a lifetime income potential in the tens of millions of dollars, that's worth a lawsuit even if the probability of success is lower. It feels scummy, but most personal injury lawyers are investing in cases. They'll be happy to take a lower probability chance on a bigger return. It's not all that different from venture capital, although you could argue pretty easily that VCs are a more positive force for social good and value creation.
  - dlgeek 14y ago
    That's odd, in NC where I was originally licensed, you had to prove insurance coverage before they would issue you a license.
- fl3tch 14y ago
  When you rent a car, you usually pay for insurance specifically for that car, for the few days you drive it. Why would this be different?
  - protomyth 14y ago
    It seems like EasyRide doesn't follow the rental companies time tested way of doing insurance. Having a company policy is interesting, the problem is the courts assume company policies cover vehicles "owned" (through actual ownership or lease) by a company and driven by employees or people under their hire (e.g. consultants). They probably should have gone with part of the fee being an actual insurance policy for the driver for the car. It would be a much easier and known business scenario for the courts. If your business model requires new rulings by the courts, then you better have deep pockets.
- gcb 14y ago
  The insurance company can't have the cake and.eat it too. Either the owner pay as if she wasn't doing a business, or the dead guy's pay as if he was driving a rental. Mine is pretty basic and i can pay my deductible for rentals.
hollerith 14y ago
Liability law allows the injured party to go after both, and if one of them was without insurance . . .
dkrich 14y ago
Because that's not how car insurance works. You purchase a policy to insure your car (and in most cases other drivers in your family). Car insurance doesn't insure the individual against whatever vehicle he may be operating on any given day. That's why your car insurance is based upon the make/model/year of your car, as well as which state it is registered in, how many miles you drive it per day, etc. It also seems from the article that they haven't determined who was at fault.
- steve8918 14y ago
  Some car insurance policies cover rental cars. My insurance covers car rentals, so that I don't need to pay for the insurance coverage when I rent a car. From the article: "According to a preliminary police report, their car was hit by an oncoming car that seemed to have been traveling south in their northbound lane. The report concluded that Mr. Fortuna would be found at fault."
- jacquesgt 14y ago
  That actually is how car insurance works. There's a property insurance component ("collision" and "comprehensive") that insures you against loss or damage to your property. Then there's a more expensive liability insurance component that insures you against liability as a driver of any car. The property insurance portion is optional as long as you own your car outright.
  - Nrsolis 14y ago
    Correct. Liability is the "required" part of insurance in most states. It follows you from car to car. What has likely happened is that they person who rented the car didn't have insurance of their own. That seems likely, since it's kind of pointless to have automotive liability insurance if you don't own a car. Even more so if you're used to purchasing insurance at the point of sale when you rent a car.
  - dkrich 14y ago
    Incorrect. Car insurance generally "follows the car." If you lend your car to your buddy and he gets into an accident, your insurer is the primary. If you don't have insurance on the car, then if he has insurance it may cover some of the associated costs. That all gets settled in court. Collision is not required, but liability is.

by bcl 14y ago

I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be the one to pay for the injuries.

steve8918 14y ago

If the person didn't have their own car, I would be surprised if they had their own car insurance. The victims could sue the estate, but there might not be a lot of money in it.

delinka 14y ago
In my state, you can't get auto insurance without a car. You can be a licensed driver, you can have money to hand the insurance company for your premium, but if you don't own a car, you can't get car insurance. I don't know if you could get general liability insurance that would also cover you driving other people's cars. But if it's the car that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be listed on the policy? The way I understand it is even if I'm not listed on someone's policy and I'm driving their car, their auto insurance covers my fuck up when I cause an accident. Doesn't seem right, but I suppose that's the way it works.
- jacquesgt 14y ago
  When you're driving someone else's car, their collision/comprehensive insurance covers damage to their car (although there's a chance their insurance company will decline to pay or decide to sue you depending on the circumstances). Your liability insurance covers personal injury and property damage that you cause to others. Drivers are listed for two reasons. The first is because a big chunk of car insurance is liability insurance. The second is because the probability of the insurance company having to pay to repair or replace your car depends on the likelihood one of the drivers will cause an accident. This is all made more complicated by the fact that personal injury lawsuits are a numbers game. If the driver didn't have insurance and their estate has very little money, it doesn't matter that making them liable is a slam dunk case. It's not worth the effort. On the other hand, if the car owner has insurance, is alive, and has a lifetime income potential in the tens of millions of dollars, that's worth a lawsuit even if the probability of success is lower. It feels scummy, but most personal injury lawyers are investing in cases. They'll be happy to take a lower probability chance on a bigger return. It's not all that different from venture capital, although you could argue pretty easily that VCs are a more positive force for social good and value creation.
- dlgeek 14y ago
  That's odd, in NC where I was originally licensed, you had to prove insurance coverage before they would issue you a license.
fl3tch 14y ago
When you rent a car, you usually pay for insurance specifically for that car, for the few days you drive it. Why would this be different?
- protomyth 14y ago
  It seems like EasyRide doesn't follow the rental companies time tested way of doing insurance. Having a company policy is interesting, the problem is the courts assume company policies cover vehicles "owned" (through actual ownership or lease) by a company and driven by employees or people under their hire (e.g. consultants). They probably should have gone with part of the fee being an actual insurance policy for the driver for the car. It would be a much easier and known business scenario for the courts. If your business model requires new rulings by the courts, then you better have deep pockets.
gcb 14y ago
The insurance company can't have the cake and.eat it too. Either the owner pay as if she wasn't doing a business, or the dead guy's pay as if he was driving a rental. Mine is pretty basic and i can pay my deductible for rentals.

hollerith 14y ago

Liability law allows the injured party to go after both, and if one of them was without insurance . . .

dkrich 14y ago

Because that's not how car insurance works. You purchase a policy to insure your car (and in most cases other drivers in your family). Car insurance doesn't insure the individual against whatever vehicle he may be operating on any given day. That's why your car insurance is based upon the make/model/year of your car, as well as which state it is registered in, how many miles you drive it per day, etc. It also seems from the article that they haven't determined who was at fault.

steve8918 14y ago
Some car insurance policies cover rental cars. My insurance covers car rentals, so that I don't need to pay for the insurance coverage when I rent a car. From the article: "According to a preliminary police report, their car was hit by an oncoming car that seemed to have been traveling south in their northbound lane. The report concluded that Mr. Fortuna would be found at fault."
jacquesgt 14y ago
That actually is how car insurance works. There's a property insurance component ("collision" and "comprehensive") that insures you against loss or damage to your property. Then there's a more expensive liability insurance component that insures you against liability as a driver of any car. The property insurance portion is optional as long as you own your car outright.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  Correct. Liability is the "required" part of insurance in most states. It follows you from car to car. What has likely happened is that they person who rented the car didn't have insurance of their own. That seems likely, since it's kind of pointless to have automotive liability insurance if you don't own a car. Even more so if you're used to purchasing insurance at the point of sale when you rent a car.
- dkrich 14y ago
  Incorrect. Car insurance generally "follows the car." If you lend your car to your buddy and he gets into an accident, your insurer is the primary. If you don't have insurance on the car, then if he has insurance it may cover some of the associated costs. That all gets settled in court. Collision is not required, but liability is.