Joe is in accident - hits Jane. Jane and others in car are messed up. Jane sustains injuries costing nearly a million dollars. Jane recovers after a month of suffering pain including lost wages, etc.
Joe was driving dad's car (without dad's permission). Joe has a license, but because of Joe's bad driving record, he is excluded from dad's insurance and has his own insurance, the bare minimum. Joe is 26, lives with dad, has no job or assets.
Dad has a home, good insurance, but because Joe is high-risk, chose to exclude Joe from his insurance. Okay, Joe has his own insurance.
Joe's insurance barely covers a small portion of Jane's medical bills. (Jane also has minimum insurance, has under-insured motorists, but not enough to cover extensive medical bills).
Question: Can Jane go after Joe's dad, since it was dad's truck? Not after dad's insurance, but after dad's assets personally since dad excluded Joe from insurance? It would seem that the dad should bear some responsibility.
2007-11-17 08:02:21 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Insurance & Registration
jane can and probably will. it will come down to a question of how joe got accrss to the vehicle.
in the investigation did it come up? a little late to file theft charges
2007-11-17 18:56:59 · answer #1 · answered by frank 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why should Joe's dad bear any responsibility when Joe took dad's truck without his permission? The only person Jane can go after is Joe.
2007-11-17 08:10:11 · answer #2 · answered by jdhs 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yep, Jane can sue Joe, and Joe's dad, and probably will. Joe's dad's insurance isn't going to pay.
If Joe's dad didn't file auto theft charges against Joe, then Joe had permission. Either he had permission, or he stole the car. You can't get out of it with "Oh, he didn't have permission" unless you file theft charges - and prosecutes. If he filed theft charges, he's off the hook.
I've actually seen a real, live case like this. The kid wasn't excluded, but he was driving his OWN car, drunk. But lived with mom & dad, I think he was early 20's - NOT a minor. Hit a young dad with three kids, paralyzed him for life. Dad's umbrella policy ended out paying. Fault went something like, dad knew he was drinking & driving, and didn't try to stop him.
2007-11-17 13:53:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
That is the reason Joe's dad chose to 'exclude' him from his policy. All you can do is sue Joe but if he is a deadbeat you will never see a penney. Besides, why didn't Jane have more insurance? For some reason you seem to think it is perfectly OK for HER to cruise around with minimum coverage but you want to go after Joe's dad (who has NOTHING to do with his 26 year old, idiot, drug addict son) and seize HIS assets. He didn't hit Jane's car.
Damn.
2007-11-17 09:53:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
if Joe took dads car without permission then Jane is out of luck.
2007-11-17 08:08:32 · answer #5 · answered by george 2 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The owner of a car is not liable for injuries caused by a car thief.
How do you know that Joe did not have permission?
If Joe did have permission, the owner would be liable.
Have it been proven that he did not?
2007-11-17 11:48:38 · answer #6 · answered by StephenWeinstein 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋