ruined christmas/bogus ins. company

[memeAce4]

What is the name of your state? Illinois
I was involved in an auto accident in Nov. the other driver who rearended us and ins. co has accepted liability and have fixed my auto. My own insurance co. was notified however they have not had to be involved. However I have received a notice that they will not renew my policy when it expires in Feb. stating "for covered loss" driver not on the policy. Can they do this? What loss are they talking about and what rights do I have? Although this insurance sucks. I own the vehicle but do not have a license nor do I drive. My lein holder insists that I maintain full coverage on the car. Will they be able to take my car. It would be difficult for me to get other insurance due to the fact I have been in an accident even tho it was not my fault and I have no license. Please help answer Nayone out there I need insurance by Feb. I know insurance companies talk to each other so they will know about thge accident. Thanks for any advice Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!

 

[justalayman]

Who was driving the car?
If it was you, then you were driving without a license; that's obviously a no-no
If it was somebody that drives you around well. it depends.

I have had insurance that would cover an occasional driver but it was stated so in the policy. I presume, by your post, that yours does not allow this. They are merely cutting their losses before they get caught up in a situation where you or an injured party would be looking to make a claim against them.

If you drive without a license you won't get an insurance co. to cover you.

If you have somebody else drive you around you need to get the policy stating this is allowed. If it is just one person, that person would need to be listed on your policy as a driver. If it is different people, you need to speak with your ins co. and make sure that the policy covers occasional drivers.

As far as insurance co's talking to each other; well they don't have to. Your state keeps a good record of situations like your accident for them.

The accident itself, especially because it is others fault, should not prevent you from getting insurance. The driver's license I can see. You want to buy a policy that covers your car and other drivers. I'm not sure how ins. co's look at this but it seemingly would be a problem, but like Joe Walsh sings:

"I lost my license now I don't drive.
bought me a limo , ride in the back."

but he still would have to have insurance.

 

[JETX]

Though your post isn't clear on the matter, it APPEARS that you are an unlicensed driver of your insured vehicle. And that is likely why your insurance company has decided to no longer cover you.
You need to either:
1) Get a license, or
2) Get rid of your car until you DO get a license (after all, without a license there is no legitimate reason to own a car).

 

[Trucking Mad]

You can obtain ins. for the vehicle even though you don't have a license. Apparently someelse drives the vehicle. It will definately cost a bit more. Call someone such as Progressive. Shop around, (1) accident won't keep you from obtaining ins.

 

[JaeCole]

whatever you do... don't drop the insurance all together. If you go even one day as an uninsured driver - you will pay hefty premiums when you do get car insuranse again...

at least that's the way it is in New Jersey

-Jae

 

[john123456]

Trucked UP:

Lucky you! I just stumbled across another one of your pearls of wisdom, albeit a month old.

You can obtain ins. for the vehicle even though you don't have a license. Apparently someelse drives the vehicle. It will definately cost a bit more. Call someone such as Progressive. Shop around, (1) accident won't keep you from obtaining ins.

In 2003, the Illinois Second District Appellate Court held that individuals that do not hold a valid drivers license are not covered under an insurance policy. Century National Insurance Company v. Tracy (2003) 339 Ill. App. 3d 173; 789 N.E.2d 833

When are you going to stop?

 

[Trucking Mad]

Congradulations!

Trucked UP:

Lucky you! I just stumbled across another one of your pearls of wisdom, albeit a month old.



In 2003, the Illinois Second District Appellate Court held that individuals that do not hold a valid drivers license are not covered under an insurance policy. Century National Insurance Company v. Tracy (2003) 339 Ill. App. 3d 173; 789 N.E.2d 833

When are you going to stop?

Nice try! But you don't know all the facts of this individuals case.
There are many individuals that own (INSURED) vehicles that don't have licenses that have disabilities that keep them from being able to drive but have a licensed driver for transport.
I know this concept must be new to you!

 

[JETX]

I know this concept must be new to you!

The simple facts are that you made another of your many stupid, inane and INCORRECT posts. You got caught. And instead of just saying "Gee, sorry I am so stupid!", you try to spin it so some neverland response that has nothing to do with this thread.
Where does the OP say anything about being disabled?
Where does the OP say anything about needing a "licensed driver for transport"?

 

[Trucking Mad]

Though your post isn't clear on the matter, it APPEARS that you are an unlicensed driver of your insured vehicle. And that is likely why your insurance company has decided to no longer cover you.
You need to either:
1) Get a license, or
2) Get rid of your car until you DO get a license (after all, without a license there is no legitimate reason to own a car).

As you can evidently see here, you assume much in your response (especially the part were you state the poster has no legitimate reason for owning a car) and don't have all the facts either.
My post doesn't assume anything about the posters thread.
My post was directed to the other individual who assumed they knew everything and indeed was a spin into a possible scenario but never assumed that it applied to this particular thread.

 

[JETX]

As you can evidently see here, you assume much in your response and don't have all the facts either.
My post doesn't assume anything about the posters thread.
My post was directed to the other individual who assumed they knew everything and indeed was a spin into a possible scenario but never assumed that it applied to this particular thread.

And my response was directed at YOU... since YOUR response to John was full of crap.
His reference to the Illinois case was 'right on'.... since the OP admitted that he does "not have a license". But then, in your rush to claim someone elses mistake (when it wasn't), you exposed your own ignorance.

 

[Trucking Mad]

And my response was directed at YOU... since YOUR response to John was full of crap.
His reference to the Illinois case was 'right on'.... since the OP admitted that he does "not have a license". But then, in your rush to claim someone elses mistake (when it wasn't), you exposed your own ignorance.

Not having a license and assuming that someone needs a license without have all the facts..HHHHHMMMMMM lets say when you ASSUME, well there's the problem!