Is Granny Liable?

[SheilaC910]

What is the name of your state? Iowa.

On the 24th of Feb. my husband was in an auto accident. It was during our first blizzard and the roads were ice and snow covered. He was hit at an intersection. My hubby didn't have a stop sign. The 23 yr old kid that hit him did. The kid hit him in the back drivers side panel which made my husband fishtail into a park auto and pinball back across the street into a business' yard. Our car was totaled. The kid admitted to the police he had been drinking but his sobriety tests were inconclusive. He got cited for not yielding to the stop sign and not having a valid drivers license (it's expired). The kid was also driving his grandmothers car and is on her insurance policy. He outright lied to our adjuster that his license was suspended. But the cops have confirmed it’s only expired. We also have found out that this is the third ticket for not yielding to a stop sign he’s received in a 12 month period.. And the day after the accident got another ticket for not having a valid license.

My husband wants to take him to small claims court to try and get our down payment back on the car. Our car was only 8 months old and had only 2947 miles on it at the time of the accident. My husband is wondering if he can add granny to the small claim since it was her car and her insurance policy that the kid was driving under? He feels she was negligent for letting him drive the car with out a valid license. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[racer72]

The insurance company, the kid and granny are only obligated to reimburse you and your hubby for the fair market value of the totalled vehicle. It is not their fault if you were upside down on your loan or do not have a down payment. When you settle on the car you both will likely be required to sign a release relieving all partys from further claims. If you would have had gap insurance coverage on your policy, you would not have this problem.

 

[moburkes]

You received good answers from Racer.

 

[ForFun]

My husband is wondering if he can add granny to the small claim since it was her car and her insurance policy that the kid was driving under? He feels she was negligent for letting him drive the car with out a valid license.

Yep. If Granny was negligent, he can certainly sue her for negligence (and negligent entrustment of an auto is a valid cause of action).

As for what you'd get if you won, racer is correct...just the fair market value of the vehicle (and any other damages -- i.e. medical bills, etc).

 

[ellencee]

Yep. If Granny was negligent, he can certainly sue her for negligence (and negligent entrustment of an auto is a valid cause of action).

As for what you'd get if you won, racer is correct...just the fair market value of the vehicle (and any other damages -- i.e. medical bills, etc).

Granny doesn't have to be negligent in order to be named in the lawsuit. It was her car and it is her insurance company that will pay the damages (up to policy limits).

Granny probably had no idea sonny boy's license was expired and most people do not run a license check before allowing a family member to drive their cars. I sincerely doubt Granny's failure to do so would be considered negligent entrustment of an auto.

I believe the ForFun part, but are you ForReal?

EC

 

[ForFun]

Granny doesn't have to be negligent in order to be named in the lawsuit. It was her car and it is her insurance company that will pay the damages (up to policy limits).

Granny probably had no idea sonny boy's license was expired and most people do not run a license check before allowing a family member to drive their cars. I sincerely doubt Granny's failure to do so would be considered negligent entrustment of an auto.

I believe the ForFun part, but are you ForReal?

EC

I was not claiming that negligent entrustment was the only theory under which to hold granny liable (or even that it was definitely applicable in this case). Rather, I was responding to the OP's statement: "He feels she was negligent for letting him drive the car with out a valid license."

Depending on the facts, there may be other ways to hold granny liable as well (agency; family car doctrine). Merely being the owner of the vehicle is not one of them, however.

So under what theory of law would you hold granny liable?

 

[ellencee]

I was not claiming that negligent entrustment was the only theory under which to hold granny liable (or even that it was definitely applicable in this case). Rather, I was responding to the OP's statement: "He feels she was negligent for letting him drive the car with out a valid license."[/QUOTE]

Yep. If Granny was negligent, he can certainly sue her for negligence (and negligent entrustment of an auto is a valid cause of action).

Oh, yes; you did.

Depending on the facts, there may be other ways to hold granny liable as well (agency; family car doctrine). Merely being the owner of the vehicle is not one of them, however.

So under what theory of law would you hold granny liable?

The same theory of law that held me liable, as the insured, when my daughter's date wrecked my car.

If I chose, or if my insurance had chosen, the date could have been sued to recoup benefits paid.

I've always paid to be an insured driver regardless of whose vehicle I drove. That has not always been a requirement in any of the three states of which I am most familiar with drivers licensing. NC has recently made it a requirement, or so I understand.

EC

 

[moburkes]

The same theory of law that held me liable, as the insured, when my daughter's date wrecked my car.

If I chose, or if my insurance had chosen, the date could have been sued to recoup benefits paid.

I've always paid to be an insured driver regardless of whose vehicle I drove. That has not always been a requirement in any of the three states of which I am most familiar with drivers licensing. NC has recently made it a requirement, or so I understand.

EC

You've lost me on the bolded part. What you have described is a part of every insurance policy that I've ever seen. The closest thing that I've seen, which is the opposite of what you've described, is that some companies that offer insurance at state minimums do not extend that liability coverage to non listed drivers, household members or not. But, your own insurance policy will ALWAYS pay secondary if the policy holder/vehicle owner's insurance coverage is not enough.

By the way, I originally thought that you to were each missin the other's point, becase you were talking about being NAMED in the lawsuit, while FF was talkng about being negligent and liable.

 

[SheilaC910]

The insurance company, the kid and granny are only obligated to reimburse you and your hubby for the fair market value of the totalled vehicle. It is not their fault if you were upside down on your loan or do not have a down payment. When you settle on the car you both will likely be required to sign a release relieving all partys from further claims. If you would have had gap insurance coverage on your policy, you would not have this problem.

For the record no one said I didn't have GAP insurance. Also it may not be their fault I had a loan on a new car but sorry he is at fault for totaling my new car. As a result taking away my trade in and down payment. The law maybe not see it this way.. but I do.

I realize this is not about my feelings. It’s about the law and why I brought my question to the board.

As to the reason I asked about granny is because sonny boy lives with her. I realize she may not know everything her grandson is doing such as the expired license or the fact he went out to drink but she did know it had been freezing rain all day then turn to snow that evening and that he‘d have to drive 20 miles to get to town. If my husband didn’t have to work that night he wouldn’t have been out.

I don’t mean to sound rude, I do appreciate the comments. Please understand this has been very frustrating and both insurance companies (mine and his) have not exactly been easy to work with.. Mine especially. They agree he’s liable and 100% at fault but won’t go after his insurance company (which I don‘t get). And it just doesn’t seem this kid is paying any consequences for his actions. Not that I know what consequences he should be paying, but personally am tired of feeling like we’re getting screwed. So we were just looking for ways to at least come out even. So if we can’t take him to small claims, that’s fine. It was worth asking about, I think. Thank again for the comments this has been and eye opener.

 

[moburkes]

For the record no one said I didn't have GAP insurance. Also it may not be their fault I had a loan on a new car but sorry he is at fault for totaling my new car. As a result taking away my trade in and down payment. The law maybe not see it this way.. but I do.

I realize this is not about my feelings. It’s about the law and why I brought my question to the board.

As to the reason I asked about granny is because sonny boy lives with her. I realize she may not know everything her grandson is doing such as the expired license or the fact he went out to drink but she did know it had been freezing rain all day then turn to snow that evening and that he‘d have to drive 20 miles to get to town. If my husband didn’t have to work that night he wouldn’t have been out.

I don’t mean to sound rude, I do appreciate the comments. Please understand this has been very frustrating and both insurance companies (mine and his) have not exactly been easy to work with.. Mine especially. They agree he’s liable and 100% at fault but won’t go after his insurance company (which I don‘t get). And it just doesn’t seem this kid is paying any consequences for his actions. Not that I know what consequences he should be paying, but personally am tired of feeling like we’re getting screwed. So we were just looking for ways to at least come out even. So if we can’t take him to small claims, that’s fine. It was worth asking about, I think. Thank again for the comments this has been and eye opener.

I understand that you are upset. Who wouldn't be? However, the law (and, this IS a legal forum) doesn't see it your way. I have a hard time seeing it your way. Insurance makes you whole. The way you're viewing it, is that you want to receive a benefit from it. I say that because you want the value of your vehicle (which is what insurance gives you) + the down payment (which you no longer have) + the value of your trade, which total waaaaaaaaay more than what you "lost". For example, if the ACV of your vehicle is $10k, that is what you will receive (regardless of what you owe). But, you want the $10k, plus a trade in of $3k (for example), AND the down payment of $1k (for example), which clearly puts you over the "whole" point of insurance.

But, like you were told, no one is responsible for the negative equity. That is the only way that I can think of, that you won't come out whole.

Just because your husband wouldn't have gone out in that weather doesn't mean that another person wouldn't have. Even without alcohol and an expired license, younger kids think that they are invincible. Obviously, he didn't think that he would have an accident or that he couldn't "handle" the roads in the bad weather.

I'm not sure why you think they won't go after the other insurance company, but the subrogation and the claims departments are 2 different departments, and they work independently of each other. The adjuster doesn't really know whether or not they will subrogate. AND, since the insurance company is not in the business of losing money, if they don't subrogate, they will have a good reason for not doing so. Your rates aren't dependent upon the subrogation anyway, so I'm not sure why that makes a difference to you. He WILL suffer consequences. His license will probably be suspended (I'm too tired to look it up and give you a "for sure" answer) and his insurance rates will certainly increase. His grandmother may also punish him some way, and you are not required to know about that punishment.

 

[ForFun]

I was not claiming that negligent entrustment was the only theory under which to hold granny liable (or even that it was definitely applicable in this case). Rather, I was responding to the OP's statement: "He feels she was negligent for letting him drive the car with out a valid license."

Oh, yes; you did.

I'm baffled by the fact that you would take my post to mean that negligent entrustment is the only possible cause of action in this case. I didn't even mean to imply that it was necessarily applicable in the OP's case (how could I know that without more info?). That's why I wrote "if granny was negligent...." The obvious inference is that if granny was not negligent, then negligent entrustment would not be applicable.

The portion you quoted in parenthesis merely states that negligent entrustment is a valid cause of action (i.e. people can be successfully sued for negligently entrusting their vehicles to others). Any other interpretation of what you quoted is just incorrect.

The same theory of law that held me liable, as the insured, when my daughter's date wrecked my car.

And which theory is that again? Can you share your source please?

There is an Iowa statute that may be relevant in this case (a statute that is much broader than I've ever seen, in fact). However, even as broad as it is, consent is still an element, and therefore, ownership alone is clearly not enough to impute liability.

SheilaC910, check out this statute:

321.493 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.​

1. a. ...in all cases where damage is done
by any motor vehicle by reason of negligence of the driver, and
driven with the consent of the owner, the owner of the motor vehicle
shall be liable for such damage.​

 

[ellencee]

ForFun;1594445I'm baffled by the fact that you would take my post to mean that negligent entrustment is the only possible cause of action in this case. I didn't even mean to imply that it was necessarily applicable in the OP's case (how could I know that without more info?). That's why I wrote "if granny was negligent...." The obvious inference is that if granny was not negligent, then negligent entrustment would not be applicable.

The portion you quoted in parenthesis merely states that negligent entrustment is a valid cause of action (i.e. people can be successfully sued for negligently entrusting their vehicles to others). Any other interpretation of what you quoted is just incorrect.



And which theory is that again? Can you share your source please?

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I wish to repeatedly slam my head on the wall. I do not.

EC

 

[ForFun]

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I wish to repeatedly slam my head on the wall. I do not.

EC

But you're so good at it...

The bottom line is that you misunderstood my first post. I then clarified. That should end that discussion.

As for the rest, I'll assume that your failure to provide any statute or caselaw is an acknowledgement that you have no basis for your opinion.

 

[ellencee]

But you're so good at it...

The bottom line is that you misunderstood my first post. I then clarified. That should end that discussion.

As for the rest, I'll assume that your failure to provide any statute or caselaw is an acknowledgement that you have no basis for your opinion.

You are about the most stupid person I've encountered on this forum. No, I'm wrong. YOU ARE THE MOST STUPID.

KMA.

EC

 

[ForFun]

You are about the most stupid person I've encountered on this forum. No, I'm wrong. YOU ARE THE MOST STUPID.

KMA.

EC

LOL. People often resort to insults when their backs are against the wall. It's because by then they have run out of substantive arguments and are trying to save face. Obviously if you knew what you were talking about, you'd simply support your claims and call it a day.

Here's something for you to work on: Instead of insulting those who know more about a subject, why not show some class and just admit that you're in over your head?

Honestly, after rereading this thread, I'm a little embarrassed for you (not because you don't know the law, but because of your arrogance and attacks).