Car accident in my vehicle-no insurance

[Laura2017]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts

So I let my cousin “have” my vehicle because they were going through a hard time and really needed a vehicle. It was a second vehicle I had (it is being financed through me and the full coverage insurance is in my name, they claimed they had insurance but they lied.)

They recently got into a car accident and the insurance company deemed the vehicle totaled and not driveable. Once the car was paid off (my cousin was giving me money monthly for the car payment, most months they were late/didn’t have all of the money but I never gave them a hard time. I personally paid the car insurance on the vehicle every month.)

I told them that once the loan was paid off I would sign the title over to them and the car would officially be theirs.
Now that the car is totaled, I paid of the remainder of the loan since there was only a few hundred left. My cousin want the car since it’s too expensive to fix. No problem. Then this is where I found out they didn’t have insurance like they said so now my insurance is going up because of their accident and they are claiming they are entitled to MY insurance Check which is going to be around $6000. I told them I will give them half of it (what they have paid towards the car for the last year they have had it.) they’re saying that they want the entire check and that it is “their car” and they are entitled to it.

I said no, my insurance is going up and I have to pay that monthly now. They are saying the accident wasn’t there fault (not my problem)
Now they are saying they’re taking me to court to get the full insurance Check.
Who’s in the right here!?

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts

So I let my cousin “have” my vehicle because they were going through a hard time and really needed a vehicle. It was a second vehicle I had (it is being financed through me and the full coverage insurance is in my name, they claimed they had insurance but they lied.)

They recently got into a car accident and the insurance company deemed the vehicle totaled and not driveable. Once the car was paid off (my cousin was giving me money monthly for the car payment, most months they were late/didn’t have all of the money but I never gave them a hard time. I personally paid the car insurance on the vehicle every month.)

I told them that once the loan was paid off I would sign the title over to them and the car would officially be theirs.
Now that the car is totaled, I paid of the remainder of the loan since there was only a few hundred left. My cousin want the car since it’s too expensive to fix. No problem. Then this is where I found out they didn’t have insurance like they said so now my insurance is going up because of their accident and they are claiming they are entitled to MY insurance Check which is going to be around $6000. I told them I will give them half of it (what they have paid towards the car for the last year they have had it.) they’re saying that they want the entire check and that it is “their car” and they are entitled to it.

I said no, my insurance is going up and I have to pay that monthly now. They are saying the accident wasn’t there fault (not my problem)
Now they are saying they’re taking me to court to get the full insurance Check.
Who’s in the right here!?

Did you have a contract with your cousin for this car deal?

 

[Laura2017]

Did you have a contract with your cousin for this car deal?

No, no contract. They said they have a “paper trail” with venmo, which they only
Paid a few payments (not even in full) on Venmo and other payments on cash. I have no intention on lying about what’s been paid and even offered back the amount they paid on the vehicle too just so they can put it towards another vehicle. I’m not trying to make their life harder but it doesn’t seem they care about my end.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Now they are saying they’re taking me to court to get the full insurance Check.
Who’s in the right here!?

Based on your version of events your cousin would lose in his quest for the insurance money. But there are two sides to this, and we have just the one. The outcome in court would depend on which story the court finds the more convincing.

 

[adjusterjack]

they claimed they had insurance but they lied.)

Wouldn't have mattered. Your insurance was primary. Any insurance they had wouldn't have paid for the damage to your car anyway.

I told them that once the loan was paid off I would sign the title over to them and the car would officially be theirs.

What does your insurance company have to say about that? Generally, when insurance pays for a total loss, the insurance company gets the car for salvage unless your settlement was reduced by the salvage value and you were allowed to keep the car.

they’re saying that they want the entire check and that it is “their car” and they are entitled to it.

They aren't entitled to anything. Whatever they paid you toward the loan was the equivalent of rent.

They are saying the accident wasn’t there fault (not my problem)

Well, to some extent, it is your problem. If you can show your insurance company that somebody else was at fault your insurance company could go after that person's insurance for reimbursement (subrogation) and your policy shouldn't be surcharged. I suggest you get the details of what happened and get the police report.

Now they are saying they’re taking me to court to get the full insurance Check.
Who’s in the right here!?

You are.

I’m not trying to make their life harder but it doesn’t seem they care about my end.

They don't. Why should you care about theirs?

Here's your life lesson from the school of hard knocks. Never lend your car to anybody.

 

[Litigator22]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts

So I let my cousin “have” my vehicle because they were going through a hard time and really needed a vehicle. It was a second vehicle I had (it is being financed through me and the full coverage insurance is in my name, they claimed they had insurance but they lied.)

They recently got into a car accident and the insurance company deemed the vehicle totaled and not driveable. Once the car was paid off (my cousin was giving me money monthly for the car payment, most months they were late/didn’t have all of the money but I never gave them a hard time. I personally paid the car insurance on the vehicle every month.)

I told them that once the loan was paid off I would sign the title over to them and the car would officially be theirs.
Now that the car is totaled, I paid of the remainder of the loan since there was only a few hundred left. My cousin want the car since it’s too expensive to fix. No problem. Then this is where I found out they didn’t have insurance like they said so now my insurance is going up because of their accident and they are claiming they are entitled to MY insurance Check which is going to be around $6000. I told them I will give them half of it (what they have paid towards the car for the last year they have had it.) they’re saying that they want the entire check and that it is “their car” and they are entitled to it.

I said no, my insurance is going up and I have to pay that monthly now. They are saying the accident wasn’t there fault (not my problem)
Now they are saying they’re taking me to court to get the full insurance Check.
Who’s in the right here!?

I can see why TM chose to pass. Excuse the pun, but it's more than a trifling bit taxing of legal explication. But if I were the judge sitting on the case, I would be asking you this:

On what legal grounds are you claiming entitlement to the proceeds of the policy designated to compensate for the loss of a vehicle that you admitted to having sold to your cousin. At least as to any amount exceeding what you paid in premiums and the balance of the agreed selling price?

Frankly I don't see you having any such legal argument. Granted you paid the premiums, but IMO the only insurable interest in the subject of the insurance and this most loose agreement that you can lay claim to was the unpaid balance of the agreed selling price.

If the shoe were on the other foot so to speak and somehow a policy imitated by cousin's policy is kicking in, what rights would you have to those proceeds?
_______________________________

Any negative effect the incident has upon your relationship with your insurance carrier is without significance here.

 

[adjusterjack]

On what legal grounds are you claiming entitlement to the proceeds of the policy designated to compensate for the loss of a vehicle that you admitted to having sold to your cousin.

I didn't see the word "sold" in anything that the OP wrote. The cousin rented the car for several months and had no insurable interest.

 

[Zigner]

No, no contract. They said they have a “paper trail” with venmo, which they only
Paid a few payments (not even in full) on Venmo and other payments on cash. I have no intention on lying about what’s been paid and even offered back the amount they paid on the vehicle too just so they can put it towards another vehicle. I’m not trying to make their life harder but it doesn’t seem they care about my end.

Are you saying that they were paying for the car once you gave it to them? In other words, did you, in essence, sell the car to your cousin for the remainder of the loan that was due?

 

[Litigator22]

I didn't see the word "sold" in anything that the OP wrote. The cousin rented the car for several months and had no insurable interest.

Manifestations of agreement to sell vehicle:

"I let my cousin “have” * my vehicle . . . "

("my cousin was giving me money monthly for the car payment")

"I told them that once the loan was paid off I would sign the title over to them and the car would officially be theirs."

Indicators of agreement to rent or lease vehicle:

None!
__________________________

[*] "Have - v. t.: past and past part. - to hold as property; to own; to keep; to retain . . "
* * * *
Syn. - Have, hold, own, possess. . . . implies esp. ownership with full right, title; to own as property"
Source: Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language - Unabridged page 1145

 

[adjusterjack]

Well, the way posters butcher the English language here, I wouldn't count on dictionary definitions. Let's let the OP explain.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Manifestations of agreement to sell vehicle:

"I let my cousin “have” * my vehicle . . . "

("my cousin was giving me money monthly for the car payment")

You seem to believe the word "have" to be equivalent to "own". But it could also mean that the OP simply let the cousin use the car. You seem to have selectively quoted from Websters to support your own theory, given that the online Webster's definition includes the following: ": to hold in one's use, service, regard, or at one's disposal". Indeed, reading through the full online definition there is nothing there that suggests that ownership is the only meaning for the word in this context, just one possible meaning. I've not read the definition from your particular edition of Websters but I'm willing to bet it includes a lot more than the little bit you quoted. Indeed, my print version of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed., has an even more extensive list of definitions than the online version does, not less. But the first one listed is the same as I just quoted from the online dictionary: "to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement". The fact that the OP put the word have in quotes also suggests that the OP's use of the word is not standard. In short, in my view it is not clear what the OP means by the word have — it might mean ownership or it might mean mere possession — and I'd prefer a clearer explanation of what the deal was.

"I told them that once the loan was paid off I would sign the title over to them and the car would officially be theirs."

This could indicate either a sale or gift was contemplated. Again, more details would be nice. In any event, it is clear that there was a condition to the cousin getting the title: the car had to be paid off. It is not clear when or if that condition was met.

If was a sale and the sale price was over $500 then there is the matter of the plaintiff also proving compliance with the Massachusetts version of the UCC § 2-201 statute of fraud provision requiring such contracts to be in writing. I see nothing suggesting a writing here and it's not clear that the plaintiff could show subsection (3)(c) is met which provides a part performance exception to the requirement for a writing. So here again, more details would be useful.

So I'm not in the cousin's camp on this as you apparently are. Not yet. Like I said in my earlier reply, the outcome depends on all the evidence submitted and we don't have all that here yet, or even close to it.

 

[LdiJ]

You seem to believe the word "have" to be equivalent to "own". But it could also mean that the OP simply let the cousin use the car. You seem to have selectively quoted from Websters to support your own theory, given that the online Webster's definition includes the following: ": to hold in one's use, service, regard, or at one's disposal". Indeed, reading through the full online definition there is nothing there that suggests that ownership is the only meaning for the word in this context, just one possible meaning. I've not read the definition from your particular edition of Websters but I'm willing to bet it includes a lot more than the little bit you quoted. Indeed, my print version of the Merriam-Webster
Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed., has an even more extensive list of definitions than the online version does, not less. But the first one listed is the same as I just quoted from the online dictionary: "to hold or main as a possession, privilege, or entitlement". The fact that the OP put the word have in quotes also suggests that the OP's use of the word is not standard. In short, in my view it is not clear what the OP means by the word have — it might mean ownership or it might mean mere possession — and I'd prefer a clearer explanation of what the deal was.



This could indicate either a sale or gift was contemplated. Again, more details would be nice. In any event, it is clear that there was a condition to the cousin getting the title: the car had to be paid off. It is not clear when or if that condition was met.

If was a sale and the sale price was over $500 then there is the matter of the plaintiff also proving compliance with the Massachusetts version of the UCC § 2-201 statute of fraud provision requiring such contracts to be in writing. I see nothing suggesting a writing here and it's not clear that the plaintiff could show subsection (3)(6) is met which provides a part performance exception to the requirement for a writing. So here again, more details would be useful.

So I'm not in the cousin's camp on this as you apparently are. Not yet. Like I said in my earlier reply, the outcome depends on all the evidence submitted and we don't have all that here yet, or even close to it.

The OP did say in one of the posts that he/she had to pay off the balance due on the loan after the car was totaled, so the cousin definitely did not pay off the loan. Therefore that condition was not met.