Perp, That's not the issue. they don't care wheter he was driving or not. All they care about is that he was not paying for car insurance. It makes no sense to me either, just another scam so far as I can see. One's driving record is connected to one's driver's license, not a particular car. A person does not have to own a car to have a valid driver's license.
On Jul 25, 11:34 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > How did his insurance company know he was driving for the months he > was driving your car? Can he not just say "I wasn't driving"? > > On Jul 26, 12:15 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Perp, > > > Nope, his driving record is perfectly clean. Only thing he did "wrong" > > is to not have car insurance for 6 consecutive months as he was > > driving a car owned, registered and insured by me. I could be wrong > > about him actually having to file an SR-22 but the RATES he will have > > to pay are the same as a driver that has had to. That was my point, > > having to pay the same rates as one who did have a bad driving record. > > > On Jul 25, 10:46 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That's weird. Here you have to do something wrong to have to file an > > > SR22 (like a DUI or uninsured accident). I'd check with your BMV. > > > > On Jul 24, 2:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Little incident happened today that makes me furious and I'll be > > > > damned if I can think of any excuse/justification other than plain old > > > > fashioned greed on the part of insurance companies. > > > > My oldest son is just now recovering from an extended period of > > > > unemployment bad enough that he had to return a new Jag that he could > > > > no longer afford. I loaned him an old 4-wheel drive I kept for fishing > > > > trips. I, of course ,had it licensed and insured in my own name. > > > > He recently started a decent job and was going to buy a used Malibu I > > > > loaned him the money to buy. He called the insurance agent he'd had > > > > for years to check on the insurance rate for it and was told he would > > > > have to file what is called an SR-22 and would have to pay high risk > > > > rates, the same as if he'd had multiple chargeable accidents, moving > > > > violations and/or even a DUI! Why, he quite reasonably asked. He was > > > > told it was because he had not had auto insurance for more than 6 > > > > consecutive months. That's it! > > > > He had been driving with the same driver's license, had received no > > > > tickets, no accidents, no nothing. So far as his actions as a safe > > > > driver were concerned nothing whatsoever had changed. Why would > > > > someone who did not own a car have auto insurance? > > > > Conveniently, for the insurance companies, it is state law in Missouri > > > > than one MUST have auto insurance. You can't even get your car > > > > licensed w/o showing proof of insurance and getting caught driving w/o > > > > adequate insurance is a minimum of a $500.00 fine and the threat of > > > > having your driver's license suspended. > > > > > Looks to me like a simple case of the insurance industry saying "well, > > > > we are fucking you just because we can and there's not a damned thing > > > > you can do about it". How many people in today's economy are getting > > > > royally screwed like this I have to wonder?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
