The level of auto insurance that someone might need depends on the financial circumstances of the individual concerned and the cost of the car involved. Take for example someone who has a brand new $50,000 motor, it would be sheer folly to do anything other than take out one of the best auto insurance policies available and the cost of the auto insurance is likely to be insignificant when considering the overall annual cost of the car.
However, if you have a car that is nearing the end of its life, have a low cost car and previous claims or are a new driver then the cost of the auto insurance versus the benefits you might receive need to be given greater consideration. Comprehensive auto insurance premiums are likely to be disproportionately high for older vehicles, new drivers with low cost autos or drivers with accident history.
Whatever your circumstances you are legally obliged to take out a basic level of auto insurance that will cover you against third party claims and given the level of damages awarded seem to be increasing out of control then my advice would be to get the best possible third party liability auto insurance cover that you can afford.
The legal requirements for auto insurance does vary from state to state so you’ll need to clarify the level of cover you require when taking out auto insurance but only insuring to the legal minimum isn’t necessarily the best choice to make.
If you have a lot of money sunk into your car or your auto is leased then you really should take out comprehensive and collision auto insurance to cover you for things such as fire, theft, acts of god or collisions that are your own fault.
If you live in an area where cars are regularly vandalised you might want to consider comprehensive auto insurance when perhaps you wouldn’t have otherwise done so. The cost of your auto insurance will generally be higher if you live in such an area but that is something you have to weigh up against the cost of repair.
Personal Injury Protection is something that everyone should consider as this element of your auto insurance will cover medical costs associated.
Despite legal requirements some people still persist in driving around without auto insurance leaving the others with a need to insure against the uninsured motorist. Uninsured auto insurance will cover you for damages in the event of an accident with an uninsured motorist. Again, insurance that everyone should give serious consideration to given an auto accident could leave you unable to work or your family without any means to earn.
If you want a more comprehensive auto insurance policy but want to limit the cost then you could look at opting for a higher level of deductibles. Deductibles are the amount you would have to pay before you could make a claim against your auto insurance policy and generally, the higher level you agree to the lower your auto insurance premiums.
source: http://autoinsurance.tucivita.com/what-level-of-auto-insurance-do-you-need/
Monday, July 2, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Florida Court: ‘Teenage Horseplay’ Not Covered by Auto Insurance
A Florida appeals court has affirmed a ruling saying that GEICO does not have to pay for a claim in which one of its insured drivers, Nicho Watson, helped cause an accident “involving four teenagers and some horseplay.”
The incident, which helps show why cheap car insurance for teenagers is so hard to find, happened when Watson’s girlfriend was driving Watson and two other teenagers home from a high school football game.
On the way home, Watson repeatedly reached over from the passenger seat to honk the horn and grab the steering wheel of the car while his girlfriend was driving. According to court documents, his girlfriend often ended up swerving while trying to bat his hands away. This happened “probably more than 10″ times.
But on one instance when Watson grabbed the wheel, his girlfriend was unable to recover control of the car while she was driving on an exit ramp, and the car’s left side hit a concrete wall.
After the accident, the parents of the two other teenage passengers filed a negligence suit against Watson and his girlfriend.
While the girlfriend settled with the other passengers out of court, a claim was filed with Watson’s parents’ homeowners policy, which was issued by Sunshine State Insurance Company and provided personal liability coverage.
That policy contained an exclusion, though, that Sunshine State said freed them of the obligation to pay for the claim.
Sunshine State said that because its policy excluded damages “arising out of … the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles” operated by a person covered under the policy, it was not liable.
Instead, Sunshine State argued, Watson’s parents’ auto insurance provider, GEICO, should pay for the claim.
GEICO’s policy stated that it would coverage damage “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned auto or a non-owned auto” and that the insured driver must have permission to use any non-owned auto for the claim to be considered valid.
But a trial court ruled that this incident did not qualify for coverage under the auto policy and also did not qualify under the exception under the homeowners policy because Watson’s actions “did not constitute ‘use’ of the car,” leaving Sunshine State to pay for the damages.
Three of judges from the 4th District Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s decision, although one disagreed with the rationale.
Two of the judges wrote in their opinion that Sunshine State was liable because Watson’s actions did not constitute use of the auto. The other judge wrote in a special opinion that GEICO should not have to pay because Watson did not have permission to drive the car.
Information use only, for more details visit: http://news.onlineautoinsurance.com/state/florida-car-insurance-court-decision-96125
The incident, which helps show why cheap car insurance for teenagers is so hard to find, happened when Watson’s girlfriend was driving Watson and two other teenagers home from a high school football game.
On the way home, Watson repeatedly reached over from the passenger seat to honk the horn and grab the steering wheel of the car while his girlfriend was driving. According to court documents, his girlfriend often ended up swerving while trying to bat his hands away. This happened “probably more than 10″ times.
But on one instance when Watson grabbed the wheel, his girlfriend was unable to recover control of the car while she was driving on an exit ramp, and the car’s left side hit a concrete wall.
After the accident, the parents of the two other teenage passengers filed a negligence suit against Watson and his girlfriend.
While the girlfriend settled with the other passengers out of court, a claim was filed with Watson’s parents’ homeowners policy, which was issued by Sunshine State Insurance Company and provided personal liability coverage.
That policy contained an exclusion, though, that Sunshine State said freed them of the obligation to pay for the claim.
Sunshine State said that because its policy excluded damages “arising out of … the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles” operated by a person covered under the policy, it was not liable.
Instead, Sunshine State argued, Watson’s parents’ auto insurance provider, GEICO, should pay for the claim.
GEICO’s policy stated that it would coverage damage “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned auto or a non-owned auto” and that the insured driver must have permission to use any non-owned auto for the claim to be considered valid.
But a trial court ruled that this incident did not qualify for coverage under the auto policy and also did not qualify under the exception under the homeowners policy because Watson’s actions “did not constitute ‘use’ of the car,” leaving Sunshine State to pay for the damages.
Three of judges from the 4th District Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s decision, although one disagreed with the rationale.
Two of the judges wrote in their opinion that Sunshine State was liable because Watson’s actions did not constitute use of the auto. The other judge wrote in a special opinion that GEICO should not have to pay because Watson did not have permission to drive the car.
Information use only, for more details visit: http://news.onlineautoinsurance.com/state/florida-car-insurance-court-decision-96125
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)