Questioni was in a accident 7 mnts. ago, the other driver was at fault. the vehicle i was in belonged to my brother-in-law, and his insurance company refuses to kick in the 10-20-10 policy to help me out. i had his permission to drive the truck, i'd been driving it to work for almost 8 mnts. is there any hope that they will help me?
AnswerHi Nick,
From what you tell me, I am guessing that you have tapped the tortfeasor's insurance and now you are looking to find some Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UIM). It sounds to me like you should have coverage for driving that truck, unless his insurance has a "regular use exclusion" for drivers (see below for definition). THAT exclusion, however, is usually seen on YOUR own insurance, NOT on the insurance of the vehicle.
Hence, I cannot understand the basis for them to deny you coverage, so all I can do is to take a guess. Maybe it works like this, in their mind. First, let's dispose of the "permissive use" issue. You have titled your inquiry with the word "permissive". But that cannot be the issue, since they have proof already that this WAS a permissive use. The issue for your brother-in-law is not whether or not you were a permissive user. Instead, they are most likely attempting to deny you coverage because that vehicle was "available for your regular use" and you were not listed as a driver.
THAT exclusion is usually the one that is going to be raised by YOUR insurance. For example, let's take two policies that you could tap if the tortfeasor's insurance is not adequate to pay for all of your damages.
While one would usually start with the insurance on the truck, we will start with YOUR OWN insurance policy, since we can easily dispose of the coverage issue there. Because the tortfeasor either had no insurance or had inadequate policy limits, let's pretend that you will be looking to tap into your UIM coverage. But, the problem with using your own policy might be the "regular use exclusion".
Here is the kind of wording of the "regular use exclusion" you are likely to find in your own policy.
(1) "Uninsured motor vehicle, however, does not mean a vehicle: (a) owned by or furnished or available for the regular use of you"
(2) The UIM coverage will be excluded:
"while occupying any vehicle, other than your insured car, which is owned by or furnished or available for regular use by you."
Since you have admitted that you were making regular use of this vehicle, your own insurance will not extend coverage to you. The thought is apparently that you should insure any vehicle you are operating on a regular basis, OR that you should make certain that the owner of the vehicle has sufficient insurance to cover your losses.
Does that make any sense, or at least sort of make sense?
NOW let's deal with the insurance on your brother-in-law's truck. The "regular use exclusion" clause I cited above should NOT be used against you in this case if you are seeking UIM coverage only. You need to ascertain the EXACT REASON for their denying coverage to you. Get it via e-mail so you have it in writing.
Then you can write me back, or better yet, write to your own state insurance commissioner http://www.settlementcentral.com/links.php and ask her to review the decision of the insurer.
Do you want me to give you a bullet or two for argument with the company?
Here is some reasoning that you can give them as justifying your claim under their UIM provisions. To argue the point with them, first point out that the insurance company could possibly have an interest in denying LIABILITY COVERAGE (that is when YOU cause the accident and the insurance company has to pay your victims) to a driver who made "regular use" of the insured vehicle. Why?
The company is going to contend that such a clause does have validity (as to liability claims) since they ought not be required to insure drivers who are not listed on the policy. That is just another way of cheating the company. For example, what if an insurance policy owner had a brother-in-law with such a poor driving record that he could never buy insurance? Could the truck owner subvert the system by letting this poor driver use his truck and then expect that his own insurer to pay for all the damage that he caused?
You can see the difference then between invoking the liability part of your brother-in-law's coverage, versus using the UIM part. In the latter, using the example above, the poor driving record of the permissive user is not relevant since the user is a VICTIM who is NOT LIABLE.
Thus, you can use that argument with the insurer and the Insurance Commissioner to try to invoke coverage under the UIM provisions of the brother-in-law's policy.
I trust that extra my time here has produced some information that has been of value to you, and thus I would respectfully request that you take the time to locate the FEEDBACK FORM on this site and leave some feedback for me.
Best Wishes,
Dr. Settlement, J.D. (Juris Doctor)
http://www.SettlementCentral.Com
