Insurance Question.
 

Okay so last night i got pulled over with my girlfriend. I was driving her car all day and i picked her up form work. The officer told me that, she should be driving because I am not on her insurance and I'm not covered to drive. I only borrow her car like once a month or less. Today she just bought a brand new car and she wanted to put me on the insurance and they said It doesn't make a difference if i were on it or not. Any opinions? Should we put me on her insurance, or should i just not drive her car?

its only that if you cause an accident when she is not with you at the time you would or she would not be covered because you were driving and you're not insured for use of the car.

if you are going to be driving her car, let her put your name on her insurance for like maybe $100 more a year? if you are not on the insurance and if you happen to be driving and something does happen, insurance will not cover anything.

I don't think they can even put your name under her insurance. ICBC only requires the owner to declare the principal operator (i.e. the one who drives the car 50%+ of the time). As long as the owner gives you permission to drive the car and you don't drive it over 50% of the time, you will be fine.

Edit: Assume your gf is the OWNER of course.

You are only required to list 1 main driver throughout the insurance term. The police officer does not have any say in it, unless the vehicle is stolen . Only icbc would play role in determining if there a breach in insurance (wrong Po, rate class, and territory).
Posted via RS Mobile

Where do you guys get your information from??:confused:

well from where i buy my insurance they can add a secondary driver name's down for another $100. thats where my source is coming from.

From deep within their assholes, because that's where their heads are.

:failed: + :stfu:

I called icbc with this question last month..

Only 1 name per insurance. You can't add a second name for $$. Her insurance will cover the car regardless if she is in the car or not. In order for any claims to be successful, the main driver had to drive 51% of the time.

And remember, any claims you are responsible will affect the insuree's insurance.
Posted via RS Mobile

^ end thread.

I seriously thought people would have the common sense to know this...

Your parents own the house...you live there...you get broken into...but they're not there... you're not covered? Because you're not on land title. Common sense? Anyone?

Question. Let's assume we have a parent and child. The parent retains posession of the car weekdays, but lives less than 5 minutes drive away. The child uses more KM than the parent, but only drives it the occasional weekday evening and/or weekend day.

Who is the "primary" driver? When I was younger this was essentially the case (I split insurance costs with my mom, but she was listed as the primary driver). It was just an intellectual game we played and the ICBC agent we asked couldn't give us a real answer and just suggested we leave my mom on the insurance regardless.

^technically i would presume its the one with the more KM...because it determines the amount of time the car is actually on the road..and of course the one that drives the car the most time on the road is more susceptible to being in an accident

Am I the only one that is suprised at how uninformed the police officer was? :whistle:

I'm going to have to say the parent is the primary driver because they are using the car MOST of the time. Insurance agents would usually ask who uses the car more. So, by my interpretation skills, i think that means by who uses the car longer....

I recommend insurance brokers to ask who has control of the vehicle most of the time instead of using km's
Posted via RS Mobile

From my understanding it's the based on time/possession not distance. Therefore in your case it would be the parent.

Does the "parent" and "child" live 5mins apart? Or do you mean the destination the "parent" go to all the time..is less than 5 minutes away?

Cause I remember there's a thread. Using your above scenario + the fact:
- Parent's is at work Monday-Friday
- Car is left at home
- the "Child" goes to school...and get off at 3pm, where the "parent" don't usually come home till 7/8pm

ICBC would say the "Child" is the primary driver...since he have the "access" to the car more. Even if the car is just sitting in the driveway / garage.

51% statement above is correct. However, ICBC will also consider claim history as well when they are suspecting that the "child" is driving more if the child are always involved in accidents - doesn't matter whether you are at fault or not.

In your case, just ignore the cop. He is just clueless.
Posted via RS Mobile

Yes

Pssst... you're getting ripped off.

It's probably safer to have the child listed as the principal operator in this case. The child would be lower on the CRS, and would have the higher premium.

The biggest reason behind ICBC bringing in the principal operator was so they could curb the practice of people with high discounts insuring the car in their name and then giving the car to someone with low/no discount to drive.

It's probably safest to ask ICBC, actually. When you insure a car, they'll generally ask if the owner is the principle operator... that would be a good time to pose the scenario and ask how they'd determine PO vs. RO. (If the Autoplan agent isn't sure, have them call ICBC to be sure).