Has anyone run into this with a car insurer?

[pb4uski]

Do you have any info on why they would consider roommates as in the household?...

They define household as it is commonly used, people living under one roof (not the definition used for tax purposes by the way).

The insurers assime that roommates or housemates would have access to the vehicle and the keys so their risk may be higher. In my experience when I was a roommate and in DS's past experience as a roommate or even in the current situation where he is living under our roof temporarily that assumption is patently false. In all those instances each roommate had their own vehicles and own insurance and rarely used each other's vehicles.

I was talking with my insurance agent on this and he said that with better information access that the insurers have more tools to monitor this.

In retrospect, DS should have ignored the letter from Progressive and waited until they actually added this Joe Smith as a licensed driver to his policy before responding.

 

[badatmath]

Has anyone run into this? We've had it happen in our family twice over the last 3 years.

DS owns a car and has his own car insurance. He moved in with us back in the spring when he was unemployed and planning to move to our area anyway to be closer to his niece and nephew. He "home-sat" while we were at our Vermont home for the summer. He found work a couple months ago and has been slow-walking moving out but will be moving out in the next month or so.

He recently got a letter from his car insurer, Progressive, stating that they were going to add someone to his auto policy. The name on the letter is not someone that he, DW or I know... a total stranger.

He calls them and tells them that he doesn't know this person and all is good. However, Progressive then insists that he needs to obtain and provide information on all licensed drivers in his "household" so they can add those people to his auto policy! WTF!

He has his car and car insurance and we have our car and car insurance. In the normal course, we never drive his car and he never drives our car. I could see if he was injured and needed to go to the hospital and could not drive and our car wasn't here that DW or I would use his car to drive him to the hospital. Or vice versa. But other than that, I can't envision any need for us to use his car or vice versa. I haven't driven his car in three years other than to reposition it in the driveway and he has never driven our truck that I can recall.

Progressive told him that if he doesn't provide info on us before his next renewal date in late January that they will not renew his policy. Since he'll hopefully be moved out by then the problem won't be us but he'll probably be renting a room in a house with 2-3 other roomates, each of whom have their own cars and own car insurance so the problem has just transferred and become more difficult.

DS tells me that DD and DSIL had a similar issue a couple years ago when DS was living with them temporarily. DD/DSIL's car insurer insisted that DS be added to their policy even though they never drove the others' cars.

I can understand the insurer wanting to get information on those who might drive the insured vehicle regularly or even periodically to assess their risk but it seems extreme where others don't regularly or even periodically drive the vehicle.

Is this really a thing? I actually don't mind providing them with our names and drivers license info (but not SSNs) but it seems very strange and intrusive in the circumstances.

While it is tempting for him to lie and say that he lives alone to avoid this hassle, that route would have its own perils I think.

DS thinks it is just a money grab by the insurer. I'm skeptical of that but it is a very strange practice IME. Thoughts?

All licensed drivers in the house have to be listed. You will find this at other companies as well. You can certainly change companies but it won't affect the policy.

 

[badatmath]

That's what I was told. You are insuring the car. Anyone that is properly licensed can drive that vehicle and be covered. This is a new one on me.

That varies by state. In some cases insurance follows the car and others it follows the driver. Even letting your neighbor use it "regularly" needs to be reported (depending how they define regular it might be very little).

 

[badatmath]

Requiring all drivers in the household is a common question on an Auto Insurance application. I think it is unusual for this to happen after the initial application and I would also be looking to change Insurance companies due to the threat of non-renewal for your son.

IME not unusual. Insurers have very complicated algorithms that decide how to rate you and they are constantly updating their data for the next renewal. One reason for premium differences is how they weight the factors. Some put more emphasis on a high credit score, some on age, etc. Of course all factors are considered but it is proprietary how they come up with the rates. You can't just ask.

 

[pb4uski]

All licensed drivers in the house have to be listed. You will find this at other companies as well. You can certainly change companies but it won't affect the policy.

I bought two different auto policies over the last couple years and in both cases I was asked to provide information on each driver of the vehicle. In neither case did they ask me for all licensed drivers in the house.

 

[Dash man]

USAA never asked for information on our sons and their wives, or my DFIL when they’ve lived with us for the auto policies. The exception was our umbrella policy, where they wanted everyone’s name and car listed.

 

[Kings over Queens]

That's what I was told. You are insuring the car. Anyone that is properly licensed can drive that vehicle and be covered. This is a new one on me.

Give you one better, they don't even need to be properly licensed. All then need is your permission, and the reasoning behind it is a limitation of liability if/when someone had an accident with your stolen car. The owner/insured shouldn't be responsible for an accident when someone has stolen your vehicle.

 

[Kings over Queens]

They define household as it is commonly used, people living under one roof (not the definition used for tax purposes by the way).

The insurers assime that roommates or housemates would have access to the vehicle and the keys so their risk may be higher. In my experience when I was a roommate and in DS's past experience as a roommate or even in the current situation where he is living under our roof temporarily that assumption is patently false. In all those instances each roommate had their own vehicles and own insurance and rarely used each other's vehicles.

I was talking with my insurance agent on this and he said that with better information access that the insurers have more tools to monitor this.

In retrospect, DS should have ignored the letter from Progressive and waited until they actually added this Joe Smith as a licensed driver to his policy before responding.

Do you read what you post?

The insurer assumes that all licensed residents of the house have access to the car because they usually do have access to the car, and in your case, you RARELY used each others vehicles, meaning, it happened. Would you feel better if the carrier listed the other household occupants as "residents insured elsewhere?" Or, conversely, you could ask the carrier to put a "named driver exclusion" on the policy.

 

[skipro33]

Our insurance company tried to saddle us with our son who was away at college 1,000+ miles away. I told them we were only insuring me and my wife, no other drivers and if anyone else drove our car, then they can consider it was stolen, relative, co-habitant, or what ever. Never had any problems with then since then and they have never asked about other licensed drivers living in the house.

 

[MarieIG]

We have been asked for all licensed drivers in the house. The carrier periodically seemed to do sweeps and contacted us when our sons reached 17/ 18 - sometimes even before sons had licenses or were in the military. I heard the same thing from friends with teenagers. (When my sons obtained permits I call the carrier and advised them of that voluntarily.)

When my sons obtained their own vehicles and coverage we advised the carrier of this as well.

 

[Spock]

Assuming separate BR's, each "housemate" puts a lock on their BR door preventing access to keys. Housemates are then only sharing common areas such as the kitchen, bathroom, and LR. Sort of like the NYC apartments that have a shared bathroom down the hall.

I'm mildly surprised that all of the uproar is over people you know (roommates) being on your policy. I'd be more alarmed at the complete stranger added. Happened to use 2x on medical insurance. When I called in with WTH the company dropped the stranger without any pushback... it's like you could hear them shrug on the other side of the phone. They gave no explanation as to how it happened.

 

[pb4uski]

Do you read what you post?

The insurer assumes that all licensed residents of the house have access to the car because they usually do have access to the car, and in your case, you RARELY used each others vehicles, meaning, it happened. Would you feel better if the carrier listed the other household occupants as "residents insured elsewhere?" Or, conversely, you could ask the carrier to put a "named driver exclusion" on the policy.

Yes, I read what I post.

Access to the car is inconsequential without the keys. Even if the car is parked in the driveway or on the street, anyone walking by has access. Could a housemate steal his keys?

Why would the insurer limit it to licensed residents? A housemate who was licensed or currently isn't licensed poses the same or more risk. Someone who lives there who thinks they know how to drive but is unlicensed also poses more risk. Insurers don't ask about them.

Rarely is probably an overstatement. It actually has NOT happened but I'm not willing to state that it would NEVER happen. Other than repositioning the car in our driveway, I have never driven DS's car. Similarly, he has never driven our truck. Named driver exclusion would work most of the time.

However, one instance I can envision where a named driver exclusion would be problematic is if DS got sick or injured while at home severely enough that he couldn't drive but not so severely that we should call 911 and DW is off using our truck so the only vehicle here is his car and the best option to drive DS to get medical care using his car and another driver hits us on the way to medical care and the car isn't covered. It has never happened but it could happen.

I conceded that it made perfect sense to list all drivers who use the car regularly or occasionally... whether they are in the household or not.

 

[Kings over Queens]

Yes, I read what I post.

Access to the car is inconsequential without the keys. Even if the car is parked in the driveway or on the street, anyone walking by has access. Could a housemate steal his keys?

Why would the insurer limit it to licensed residents? A housemate who was licensed or currently isn't licensed poses the same or more risk. Someone who lives there who thinks they know how to drive but is unlicensed also poses more risk. Insurers don't ask about them.

Rarely is probably an overstatement. It actually has NOT happened but I'm not willing to state that it would NEVER happen. Other than repositioning the car in our driveway, I have never driven DS's car. Similarly, he has never driven our truck. Named driver exclusion would work most of the time.

However, one instance I can envision where a named driver exclusion would be problematic is if DS got sick or injured while at home severely enough that he couldn't drive but not so severely that we should call 911 and DW is off using our truck so the only vehicle here is his car and the best option to drive DS to get medical care using his car and another driver hits us on the way to medical care and the car isn't covered. It has never happened but it could happen.

I conceded that it made perfect sense to list all drivers who use the car regularly or occasionally... whether they are in the household or not.

Because there is no rating mechanism to charge for people who aren't licensed.

I agree that a named driver exclusion is problematic, something I'd never accept. When faced with the carrier who insists on thorough underwriting, the insureds choices are as follows: List all resident drivers as drivers, or if they have their own insurance, listed as "residents insured elsewhere." In the case of listing them as "drivers," if that person has a bad record, then rates are reflective. If they don't, it's really not an issue. The other option is to find a new insurance company.

This happens all the time and really isn't a big deal. I don't understand the issue and why it's causing so much angst.

 

[pb4uski]

Give you one better, they don't even need to be properly licensed. All then need is your permission, and the reasoning behind it is a limitation of liability if/when someone had an accident with your stolen car. The owner/insured shouldn't be responsible for an accident when someone has stolen your vehicle.

So if someone steals my car and totals it, what is the limitation of liability? Would what I receive for the car any different than if I was drivng the car and totaled it?

 

[jazz4cash]

We switched to a company that specializes in coverage for 55+ drivers. They would not allow our adult child to be on the policy. She lived with us and had her own vehicle. She had to get her own coverage and I am certain they didn’t ask about other vehicles. AFAIK anyone that is authorized by me to drive my car is covered but if they have their own coverage it takes precedent. It’s occaisional use. I have a collector car policy and they never asked for info about other drivers. Occaisionally an insurer will see the collector car and inquire but they are satisfied once I explain it has it’s own policy

 

[Kings over Queens]

So if someone steals my car and totals it, what is the limitation of liability? Would what I receive for the car any different than if I was drivng the car and totaled it?

The limitation is that you aren't liable for injuries to another party, or the driver of the stolen car, in that type of accident. Has nothing to do with what you'd be paid for the damage to your car, assuming you carried collision coverage.

 

[Just_Steve]

State Farm tried this with my son, he told them he rents the downstairs apartment and cannot get that information from the people that live upstairs. That was the last he heard from them.
Been two years.

 

[OldShooter]

This is exactly what will be happening because DS will soon be moving and likely will have 1-3 housemates who will not have access to his keys or car and he doesn't want the hassle of dealing with this issue with Progressive or any other insurers.

Encourage him to talk to a few independent agents. These folks shop the insurance companies and can recommend them based on cost and service. Then, if DS has a problem, the agent can go to bat for him with the insurance company understanding that this agent can move his/her client's business if the insurance company becomes a problem.

Tied agents (State Farm, Allstate, etc.) have loyalty only to the company they represent. More: Principal–agent problem - Wikipedia

 

[pb4uski]

... This happens all the time and really isn't a big deal. I don't understand the issue and why it's causing so much angst.

More annoying than angst. Part of the problem is from what I am hearing some carriers are sticklers on this (Progressive seems to be anal about it) and others are more reasonable/permissive.

Let's say that DS moves (yah!) into one bedroom in a 4 bedroom house that he shares with 5 other people (some are couples). He has done this before. He might not even know their names or even if he knows their names he may no know whether they are licensed to drive or not.

The "residents insured elsewhere" thing would work for us now but perhaps not when DW moves unless all the housemates are cooperative in providing the required information. If a housemate refuses to cooperate then it seems that DS would have no option other than to find a more accomodating insurer.

 

[pb4uski]

State Farm tried this with my son, he told them he rents the downstairs apartment and cannot get that information from the people that live upstairs. That was the last he heard from them.
Been two years.

That may be where we are headed.

 

[Kings over Queens]

More annoying than angst. Part of the problem is from what I am hearing some carriers are sticklers on this (Progressive seems to be anal about it) and others are more reasonable/permissive.

Let's say that DS moves (yah!) into one bedroom in a 4 bedroom house that he shares with 5 other people (some are couples). He has done this before. He might not even know their names or even if he knows their names he may no know whether they are licensed to drive or not.

The "residents insured elsewhere" thing would work for us now but perhaps not when DW moves unless all the housemates are cooperative in providing the required information. If a housemate refuses to cooperate then it seems that DS would have no option other than to find a more accomodating insurer.

Yes, Progressive is very aggressive in this area.

If the uncooperative roommate has a bad driving history that affects your sons rates, then yes, he would need to find a new carrier, or a new roommate. Potentially he could show the carrier that he's a tenant in a multifamily home and that might satisfy them. Impossible to say. Still, if there is no impact in your sons rates if the uncooperative driver is listed in your hypothetical example, then really, where is the harm?

 

[RetireBy90]

I don’t know if it is a widespread problem, we have USAA and DS lives with us but he has his own policy and they never asked anything like this.

 

[OldShooter]

Yes, Progressive is very aggressive in this area.

... if there is no impact in your sons rates if the uncooperative driver is listed in your hypothetical example, then really, where is the harm?

Easy. This is a company that thinks the customer works for them rather than vice-versa. The potential for future problems is easy to see.

Their web page indicates that they sell direct and also through agents. Apparently the OP is direct. Too bad. I would expect a good agent to solve this kind of problem for his client or to have placed the client's business somewhere else in the first place.

 

[Chuckanut]

My insurance company wants the names of all licensed drivers in my house, regardless of who owns what car. Apparently that is a factor in setting my insurance rate. This has been a requirement for at least a decade.

 

[FedRetired50]

My daughter and I live together, and when she decided to get her own auto policy, my agent said we would still need to be on each other's policies, and worse, wouldn't be covered if we drove each other's cars. I convinced her to stay on my policy.