If I'm hit by a drunk driver who ran and I don't have ins. Is he liable if he had permission to drive the car?

Question

I was stopped at a red light at the time. He hit me going 80mph without even hesitating. (no skid marks) After his car came to a stop, he and his fifteen year old son fled. (the driver had head injuries and his son had a broken leg) He was later apprehended at the car owners residence with a blood-alcohol level of about 8 times the legal limit. The problem is that I don't have insurance but the owner has the car insured under her. The driver at the time gave a recorded deposition that he had permission to drive the car on a regular basis. However, the insurance company made an offer (not even close) and is now denying the claim based on the driver having proper permission.

Answer 1

Permissive use laws vary from state to state and insurance policy to insurance policy. IAn insurance policy is a contract all parties agree to; if the policy specifically states coveage is not afforded unless the driver is named on the policy, there is no coverage.

Answer 2

Few things... it's different for an insurance company to deny your claim (I don't see why they would) and deny coverage to the the owner and operator of the other vehicle. Also, depending on the state where this occured, the responsible party is not always the owner (I think it should be but I don't make the laws), sometimes its _only_ the driver... unless negligent entrustment can be established, which might be possible in this case. So you can't always just file suit against the owner of the vehicle instead of the driver (I'm guessing that this holds true of just a few states, though). BTW- if you file suit, you do so against the owner _and_ the driver anyway... it just takes one extra line on the complaint paperwork. It cost the same amount of money. You then let the judge determine who you can sue.

In most states the liability indeed does flow through to the owner. So even though the policy may not provide coverage to the driver, it will protect the owner. Meaning they should still offer compensation to you on behalf of the owner.

But let's move back to this permissive use thing... I certainlly don't know all the facts but it's _extreemly_ difficult to prove that the operator of a vehicle did not have permissive use. How did the driver obtain the keys? If the driver has ever driven the vehicle in the past, they have implied permission. Were the keys just left out? That would probably be implied permission. Was the driver ever specifically told my the owner that they could never use the vehicle or told that day that they could not use it? If not, implied permission (together with something else mentioned above). About the only way a person does not have "permission" is if they were to commit an outright theft of the vehicle or broke into something locked that contained the keys. If someone is living in the same house as the owner... they are almost _always_ going to qualify for implied permission. Courts look at it this way otherwise the owner of a vehicle could get out of liability just by claiming they did not give the owner permission.

These situation can be very bad for the innocent party and in cases like this, adjuster make mistakes very frequently. Their knee jerk reaction is to not want to pay for something when their driver did something so wrong. What they don't realize is that they are no punishing their insured... they are only punishing the innocent party. Also, newbie adjusters deny claims for non-permissive use way too often. As mention above, it's actually not a good leg to stand on.

My recommendation... speak to the adjuster and find out _exactly_ what they are doing. Are they denying their driver and/or owner coverage in this case? If so, why? Ask them some of the questions above that may fit their answer. You may also want to point out that you really think they need to consider giving their insured coverage otherwise you will file suit and this may open them up for a Bad Faith claim. Briefly, if they deny their insured coverage but then determine that coverage should be provided, their insured can then file a Bad Faith claim against his/her own carrier for their suffering as a result of the incorrect denial. A Bad Faith claim is equal to hell for an insurance company. They run from these situations as quickly as possible. The main reason why you want to mention this is to get the adjuster to speak to his/her supervisor and perhaps even managers/executive in the company for a "second opinion". You just want to get them to pay your claim... you don't can how or why.

I re-read your post. At the end you mention the carrier denying the claim for the driver 'having propert permission". Do you mean _not_ having proper permission?

The only way that a denial of any kind means anything is if it' s in writing. If it's verbal... nothing has been decided.

Lastly... there is no state I know of that does not _require_ insurance. You state that you don't have insurance. Is it that you don't have collision coverage or don't have insurance. If you don't have insurance then you know how other people feel if you were to hit them. Good feeling? Fair? If you don't have insurance at all, I have little pity for you.

Answer 3

if he hit you at 80 mph you and your car would both no longer exist. So unless your writing from beyond the grave.. you werent hit at that speed. just had to clear that up.

Likewise- it is impossible to have a blood alcohol level that high without dying. Just trying to clear up your tall tale a bit before we proceed.

And yes, depending on the language of that persons policy- they have ever right to deny a claim if the person is not a listed driver. It is in no way illegal or immoral. You pay to have coverage for the people you list on your policy- anyone else is at the companies discretion if they cover or not and it depends on the specific person/policy

The person above me is incorrect. Just because the driver said they had permission doesnt mean they did. The OWNER is the one who should tell the company if they had permission or not. Are you telling me that if someone stole YOUR car and hit another car that YOU would want to be responsible? how is that fair?

P.S. Your telling me you dont have insurance so YOU wouldnt be able to compensate people if you were at fault but you expect some person who has insurance and had someone steal their car pay for you? Dude.. hows that fair?

Answer 4

The car owner is liable for your damages. It doesn't matter if the driver had permission. It's the vehicle that's insured. The insurance company knows you have no insurance, and therefore no one to fight for you. So don't deal with them. Sue the owner.

Answer 5

Sounds like the insurance accepted blame, and made an offer that you turned down. Without insurance there is no way you are going to get full compensation for this, without insurance you shouldn't have even been there, so some of the blame is yours, like it or not.

Since you don't have insurance to fight for your rights, you may have to go the attorney route, but don't expect much and he will take a third of what you do get.

Answer 6

I don't know the law in your country, but in SA the person under influence of alchol is at fault. HE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING! They should take action against him for that, and he must be liable for the damages. But bite the bullet and take the offer as you don't have insurance and learn your lesson here.