Legal Question in Insurance Law in California

Re: Can my insurance do this?????

The answer to your question depends on the following:

1. Were you an excluded driver on the policy?

2. When your husband bought the policy did he disclose the fact that he was married to you and that you were also going to drive the subject car?

You need to have an attorney review the copy of your insurance purchase application as well as the policy. Good luck.

Re: Can my insurance do this?????

Often insurance policies exclude family members residing in the same household, unless specifically identified as additional drivers. That is probably why your husband's carrier refuses your claim. If you know who hit you, you can still bring a lawsuit against that person but, more than likely he/she does not have coverage and has no assets. Good luck to you. -Robert F. Cohen, Esq.

Re: Can my insurance do this?????

I empathize with your position, but I'm afraid you are out of luck. There is a basic problem with your logic, which shows up each of the several times you refer to "my insurance" or "my insurance company". It is not your insurance -- it is your husband's.

Insurers will usually charge more if they are insuring two drivers than if they are insuring one. They also expect -- and reasonably so -- an opportunity to judge how much of a risk each spouse presents before issuing a policy. If one spouse is a good driver while the other has a history of accidents and violations, they are not equal risks and the insurer would charge a premium based upon the risk presented. If a good driver could sign a policy and thereby obligate the insurer to cover the bad driver whom it never evaluated, insurance rates would go up dramatically because insurers would be concerned about unknown risks they were taking on.

You are correct that both spouses in a marital community are responsible for community debt. But you are incorrect in concluding that the insurance is a debt. The *premium* would be a debt if it went unpaid and you could both be sued to pay for it, but the insurance itself is a different matter.

It doesn't matter that you were present when your husband bought the car or the insurance. The purchase of the car doesn't have anything to do with what the insurance policy covers, and the mere fact that you were present when your husband bought the policy also changes nothing. The insurer isn't even obligated to ask about your status (after all, you might have had separate insurance or maybe you don't drive at all; for all the insurer knew, you weren't even his wife), let alone provide coverage to someone who has not paid for it and who has not been evaluated.

The fact that you paid the premiums is also beside the point. Given that the premium is a community debt, it is appropriate for either of you to pay. This still does not affect the analysis. One spouse's insurance does not cover the other spouse.

By your logic, you should be entitled to drive based solely upon his drivers license even if you don't have one of your own. Even worse, your logic suggests that you would somehow be entitled to practice law or medicine if he were a laywer or a physician. It doesn't work that way.

The insurance company is right on this one.

Make sure you evaluate your health, life, and property insurance in light of what you have learned from this experience. You may have a similar problem waiting down the road if you made similar assumptions about those policies, and you would be wise to make the necessary changes now before you suffer another uninsured loss.