My sixteen-year-old daughter recently got her driver license, and I added her to my auto insurance policy. Despite her being a girl, getting good grades, driving only occasionally – her rate is through the roof, as it would be for any first-time driver.
At least I can split the cost with her mom. Right?
Wrong!
Insurance companies in California insure a driver for a specific car. They rated my daughter for my vehicle, but they won’t insure her if she drives her mom’s car. On the surface, that seems reasonable. We’re a two-home family and my daughter spends equal time with me and her mom. Two homes, two cars, two insurance policies.
Since she only lives with me half time, I should pay half as much to insure her. Right?
Wrong!
The insurance company explained it this way: your daughter has 24/7 access to your vehicle, so we need to insure her on it 24/7.
What a load of crap. My daughter only lives with me half time, and I only have one car. She has access less than half the time. Compared to other teens, that’s less than half as much chance for her to get into an accident in my car.
In a traditional (non-divorced) home with multiple cars, the teen gets rated for primarily driving one of the vehicles. However – if that car isn’t available, the teen is allowed to drive a secondary vehicle in the household, and they will be insured.
So, my ex-wife’s car be considered a secondary vehicle. Right?
Wrong!
The insurance company wants nothing to do with my ex-wife’s car. Unless… if my ex-wife moves her auto policy so we’re both insured by the same company, then they will create a policy that covers my daughter on both cars, without charging us double.
Sounds to me like single parents are being discriminated against by the insurance industry. Unless we’re willing to shill and sell an auto policy to our ex.
What do you think about that
Read Full Story
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.