When my daughter totaled her 2001 Ford Escort we called the insurance company. My insurance company told me that their was only liability on her car!!! Of course, I freaked out and was steaming mad. The reason I was dumbfounded by this is because we owe $4,200 on the car and have the car loan through a local bank. Now, isn't it a law, that we should've had full coverage on this vehicle because we had a 4,200 car loan to the bank. On any other vehicle I have ever bought I know for fact that the bank made me have full coverage on that vehicle. Now, what do I do? Am I screwed, or is the insurance company at fault of the bank? I really am frustrated, please help.
2006-10-30 04:59:53 · 17 answers · asked by Chad V 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Insurance & Registration
Ok, first of all, you can forget the insurance company providing full coverage for the vehicle. If you have not had it all this time they won't add it now. You weren't paying a premium for it. Sometimes, the bank supplies your comprehensive and collision with a separate policy with a different carrier. You can check that. If the insurance company did not get notified by the lienholder that there was a lienholder then liability only will be what she has on the policy.
So if there was no separate policy provided for the vehicle for collision and comprehensive, then the damages won't be covered. That is why you always check your policy documents when you get them to make sure the coverage you think you have is on there. I know, there are a lot of people rolling their eyes saying "we don't understand insurance paperwork", but it is not that hard to figure out a declarations page.
I know I didn't help because it's not the answer you're looking for. What happens a lot of times is people have a car on the policy that has liability only, and then they buy another car and say, "give met he same coverage I had before". Well, that's what you get. Then the lienholder sends no notice and guess what? You have liability only on your financed vehicle!
2006-10-30 09:38:17 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have to check the insurance trail. If it had comp/coll coverages in the beginning, find out when it changed, and who signed for it. when I do renewals, I quickly run over insurance uses, territories, deductibles, tpl coverages, etc, to make sure no changes are needed, wanted or recommended. I do not change, and cannot legally change coverages without the consent and signature of the insured. Did your daughter sign for the insurance and pay for it? Would she have reduced coverage to save some dollars? Someone has to pay for the car, and I doubt if it is going to be the bank, unless they issued a release of interest to the broker in error. The only probable way you are off the hook is if the insurance company or broker made an error, in which case you can go after the errors and omissions coverage, but that doesn't happen often. Good luck.
2006-10-30 14:28:45 · answer #2 · answered by Fred C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are basically screwed to put it mildly. Here are the reasons:
1. YOU failed to check the insurance papers from time to time to ensure that YOU had full coverage
2. YOU are responsible for intimating the bank (or sending a copy sometimes) about the kind of insurance policy you are taking.
Your only option is to check with your bank. sometimes the banks take insurance policies on their own (and charge you) if they find insufficient coverage. But looks like you are in the deep here.
Off the topic, how long was your loan (since its a2001 car). My rule of thumb is if you have to take a car loan greater than 36 months (3 years) then you can't afford the car and you should go a bit cheaper.
2006-10-30 10:34:52 · answer #3 · answered by tigerclaws12 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You definately should have had full coverage. Every six months you should get a declarations page and insurance cards that show your coverages. They obviously didn't say "collision" coverage on them. It is your responsibility to read your policy to see if you have the coverages you should have. You now will be responsible for the car. You will still owe the bank the balance, even though the car is gone. They should have made sure you had coverage, but since both you and the bank missed it you will have to pay off the bank yourself. If you don't, the bank will knock your credit score pretty badly. No one is at fault here except you for not reading your policy.
2006-10-30 07:50:18 · answer #4 · answered by Emily B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you tell the insurance company that you wanted full coverage on the vehicle? At any time did you tell them that you wanted liability only on the vehicle? I am surprised the bank did not call to see why they did not have a dec page and policy for this vehicle. You need to do some digging and see what is going on. IF they have a leinholder on file for this vehicle you should have full coverage. It is worth fighting and see if the agent will put the full coverage on the vehicle. The agent can call and say he made a mistake and should have been full coverage if you did not say that you wanted liability only. Talk to him and see what he will do for you.
2006-10-31 08:40:20 · answer #5 · answered by dr's mom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The loan for the car may have been classified as a personal loan rather than having the car as collateral. A lot of banks won't place a lien on a car with that small a loan. Generally, if your loan is secured by the car, it must have full insurance coverage.
BUT, you placed the insurance on the car, if you didn't carry full covereage, it's your fault. Just because the bank didn't know you weren't carrying full coverage, doesn't mean that your mistake is their fault. Good luck!
2006-10-31 05:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by jack jr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would think that when the bank paid for the car one of the stipulations would have been to have full coverage, but i guess that is there call. as for the insurance company, they only do what you tell them to, i have had an insurance lapse before and the insurance company notified my bank, and the bank told me if i didn't get coverage on the vehicle then they would do it and add the amount of there insurance to my loan. but hat is neither here nor there. all in all i would say that your screwed unless you decide to not pay for they car and the bank will then repo it and sell it at auction, but what ever is left owed to them you will be held responsible for.
2006-10-30 05:09:02 · answer #7 · answered by bigolredneck75 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If every other loan you've had through the banks made you have full coverage, why didnt you get it on this one? Because they didnt tell you? Because you were trying to scam? Or save money? You should have done what you ALWAYS did before!!
but, enought about 'shoulda', 'coulda' 'woulda'
it is NOT law to require that you have full-coverage, but it is based on each individual institutions' policies. 9 times out of 10 yes they will require you. I work at a bank, and NOT to be rude to you at all, but chances are you misunderstood them. i get people in here every single day who say "you never told me that!!!".......which is totally understandable because during a loan you are going over many many things and it can get confusing. You may be crap outta luck this time, but let this be a reminder to you next time to get Gap Coverage on your vehicle!!!
good luck!
2006-10-30 06:10:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
From my personal experience it is state law where I live that when a dealer sells you a car and finances you, you are REQUIRED to show the dealer evidence of full coverage before you can even take the vehicle. Maybe the insurance paperwork and policy will tell you exactly what the coverages are.
2006-10-30 05:52:09 · answer #9 · answered by tucsondude 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF you have a loan on the car, you are requirred to have full coverage. If you purchased GAP insurance when you bought the car, that will pay any remaining balance on the loan. If you didnt buy the GAP, your basically out of luck and responsible for the amount owed on the loan
2006-10-30 05:17:51 · answer #10 · answered by scottb03gt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋