Has anyone run into this with a car insurer?

[isisdave]

This is normal, and is to protect the insurance company against a terrible driver they don't know about driving your (wonderful drivers) car. Like the 19-year-old with a DUI who had to move back in with you because he lost his job. You can imagine how I know.

Our choice was to pay higher rates for our cars (he had his own), or agree to a driver exclusion ... i.e., the kid will not drive our car, and if he does and has an accident we're not covered.

If your additional driver doesn't have a bad record, there'll be no consequence unless possibly you now have more drivers than cars, not sure about that. And changing companies won't help. Although it might have taken a new one a while to figure it out, the data is now in The Cloud and they will know right away. Plus, they'll ask you to list all the drivers in your household, and if you lie by leaving someone out, they'll cancel you.

 

[pb4uski]

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?

How would one know how any additional drivers impact the premium? They could just let it slide for the remaining term and then it would be embedded in any normal increase and would be indistiguishable.

 

[badatmath]

Seems an odd thing to be upset over. Insurance company ratings are pretty complex and always have been. And despite what you pay in rates, it is not uncommon for major companies to carry an underwriting loss where they are spending more on claims than they take in. They don't go out of business because their investments keep them afloat. But they always want to get the underwriting loss to minimal or none.

 

[Koolau]

Seems an odd thing to be upset over.

For an insurance company to assume that other drivers have access to and permission to drive your vehicle just because they live under the same roof is something to be upset about - since it affects what you pay.

 

[Spock]

...
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. ...

Social credit scores, thy name is car insurance.

 

[Zathras]

For an insurance company to assume that other drivers have access to and permission to drive your vehicle just because they live under the same roof is something to be upset about - since it affects what you pay.

If the companies pay out more due to increased accidents, they rebalance their rates and everyone pays more.
If Progressive calculates that if they can identify higher risk households, then they can keep their overall rates lower, while only the higher risk households pay increased rates.

It is all a numbers game. None of this is personal, it is just a matter of identifying risk as best they can.

Another way to look at it, the consumer gets what they pay for.
Pay for the lowest rate available, you get to deal with slow walking/denial of claims and/or a higher level of scrutiny.

 

[Spock]

....
Another way to look at it, the consumer gets what they pay for.
Pay for the lowest rate available, you get to deal with slow walking/denial of claims and/or a higher level of scrutiny.

Show me where paying higher rates guarantees faster, lower scrutiny, approved claims.

 

[Kings over Queens]

How would one know how any additional drivers impact the premium? They could just let it slide for the remaining term and then it would be embedded in any normal increase and would be indistiguishable.

The insured would know because the drivers history of accidents or violations is stated in the rating section of the policy. As well, if the driver was added after the policy started, the rate change would be noticed right away.

 

[Kings over Queens]

For an insurance company to assume that other drivers have access to and permission to drive your vehicle just because they live under the same roof is something to be upset about - since it affects what you pay.

It's a safe assumption to make because it's almost always the case where the other resident or residents in the house have access to the keys and implied if not direct permission to drive the vehicle.

 

[Kings over Queens]

Show me where paying higher rates guarantees faster, lower scrutiny, approved claims.

Guarantee? I don't agree with that standard, but to the degree that carriers who charge higher rates implement those revenues to better training, more staff, and technology, yes, it's plausible. Look at Chubb. They are known for excellent claim service and their niche market is higher net worth individuals who will pay the higher rates that Chubb charges.

In this discussion however, we're not talking about higher rates at face value, but rates/premiums that are derived by proper underwriting that identifies exposures. If Mr. Smith a 1 Apple Street has 2 cars and 3 drivers and Mr. Jones at 2 Apple Street has the same 2 cars and same aged 3 drivers, but one of the drivers has a ticket, shouldn't Mr. Jones insurance carrier be entitled to charge more?

In that example, @Zathras is correct. When the insured evades rate based on their exposure, they really shouldn't complain about poor service.

 

[pb4uski]

It's a safe assumption to make because it's almost always the case where the other resident or residents in the house have access to the keys and implied if not direct permission to drive the vehicle.

That is 180 degrees from my expereince with housemates just out of college and DS's recent experience recent housemates.

When I had housemates in the late 1970s, they never had access to my keys nor I their keys. Now if I was using the shower could they sneak into my room and look for my keys?... yup. We didn't lock our rooms nor did we secure our car keys, but my car keys were usually in my pocket. And they didn't have permission to drive my vehicle. We were friendly and did socialize together.

And DS's situation is even better. In the last house he was in they did lock their bedroom doors and the housemates barely knew each other and didn't socialize together. They were ships passing in the night other than an occasional hello.

 

[Kings over Queens]

That is 180 degrees from my expereince with housemates just out of college and DS's recent experience recent housemates.

When I had housemates in the late 1970s, they never had access to my keys nor I their keys. Now if I was using the shower could they sneak into my room and look for my keys?... yup. We didn't lock our rooms nor did we secure our car keys, but my car keys were usually in my pocket. And they didn't have permission to drive my vehicle. We were friendly and did socialize together.

And DS's situation is even better. In the last house he was in they did lock their bedroom doors and the housemates barely knew each other and didn't socialize together. They were ships passing in the night other than an occasional hello.

There will always be an outlier and someone with anecdotal evidence to the contrary. My point remains true in the broader discussion that goes past roommates or housemates, which are a smaller percentage of the population than relative household members. At the same time, it's silly, in my view, to compare what took place in the 70's to today.

Didn't you agree earlier that there were times that your roommates had access to your vehicle?

 

[engineernerd]

Well, let us know how it goes when DS gets his quotes from other insurers. They don't all do the same things.

We did have an interesting experience with getting a quote from State Farm, not the same as yours but similarly weird. They gave us preliminary quotes for auto, home, and umbrella - but then found out that my spouse was listed as primary driver on MIL's car insurance, and because of that they would not offer us auto insurance.

Never mind that she paid insurance to cover her car (in Virginia) and we paid insurance to cover our cars (in Washington State), and in reality there was no primary driver of her car because she didn't drive but liked to ride around in her own car, so she paid various nice people to drive her where she needed to go.

Allstate has no wording in their policy suggesting a claim could be denied over something like that, though they didn't know about MIL's insurance because it was through State Farm.

 

[pb4uski]

There will always be an outlier and someone with anecdotal evidence to the contrary. My point remains true in the broader discussion that goes past roommates or housemates, which are a smaller percentage of the population than relative household members. At the same time, it's silly, in my view, to compare what took place in the 70's to today.

Didn't you agree earlier that there were times that your roommates had access to your vehicle?

No, I don't think I indicated earlier that there were times that my roommates had access to my vehicle. Also, it depends on how you define access.

The only way that they would have been able to use my vehicle is if they stole my keys, which would have been hard since my keys were usually on my person. If not on my person like if I was out for a run, then the keys would be in my room.

As I tried to relay earlier, DS is in a similiar situation in 2025 but actually arguably more secure in that his housemates are strangers rather than friends/colleagues.

So unless you are saying that a housemate would try to find our keys and use the vehicle without our consent or permission (auto theft?) then not a realistic problem.

 

[pb4uski]

Well, let us know how it goes when DS gets his quotes from other insurers. They don't all do the same things.

We did have an interesting experience with getting a quote from State Farm, not the same as yours but similarly weird. They gave us preliminary quotes for auto, home, and umbrella - but then found out that my spouse was listed as primary driver on MIL's car insurance, and because of that they would not offer us auto insurance.

Never mind that she paid insurance to cover her car (in Virginia) and we paid insurance to cover our cars (in Washington State), and in reality there was no primary driver of her car because she didn't drive but liked to ride around in her own car, so she paid various nice people to drive her where she needed to go.

Allstate has no wording in their policy suggesting a claim could be denied over something like that, though they didn't know about MIL's insurance because it was through State Farm.

That's crazy. They were insuring the WA cars, so how does the fact that your MIL has your DW as a listed driver impact their risk? If anything their risk is lower because at least part of the time your DW would be driving MIL's car in VA so the WA car was not being driven. That's nuts!

 

[Koolau]

Show me where paying higher rates guarantees faster, lower scrutiny, approved claims.

Uh, State Farm (love it or hate it).

 

[Kings over Queens]

No, I don't think I indicated earlier that there were times that my roommates had access to my vehicle. Also, it depends on how you define access.

The only way that they would have been able to use my vehicle is if they stole my keys, which would have been hard since my keys were usually on my person. If not on my person like if I was out for a run, then the keys would be in my room.

As I tried to relay earlier, DS is in a similiar situation in 2025 but actually arguably more secure in that his housemates are strangers rather than friends/colleagues.

So unless you are saying that a housemate would try to find our keys and use the vehicle without our consent or permission (auto theft?) then not a realistic problem.

There is another way your roommates could have used your car, and it's very simply because you gave them permission to use it. You've made comments about the occasional use of roommates vehicles, which is exactly what the insurance carrier is looking to identify. Who has access to use the vehicle. The "problem" is the these nefarious hypothetical reasons out of the blue where someone would find your keys without consent. One of the the issues is the occasional use of the car. "Hey pbuski, my car is blocked in, can I use yours to run to Wawa?" And yes, I'm all but positive you'll admitted to that happening.

Obviously there is also the regular usage by an unlisted driver that the insurance company is looking to solve.

I'm still struggling with why you are having such an issue with this? Given the experience you claim to have in the industry, and by your own admission, allowing people to occasionally use your car, it's really baffling.

 

[Kings over Queens]

Well, let us know how it goes when DS gets his quotes from other insurers. They don't all do the same things.

We did have an interesting experience with getting a quote from State Farm, not the same as yours but similarly weird. They gave us preliminary quotes for auto, home, and umbrella - but then found out that my spouse was listed as primary driver on MIL's car insurance, and because of that they would not offer us auto insurance.

Never mind that she paid insurance to cover her car (in Virginia) and we paid insurance to cover our cars (in Washington State), and in reality there was no primary driver of her car because she didn't drive but liked to ride around in her own car, so she paid various nice people to drive her where she needed to go.

Allstate has no wording in their policy suggesting a claim could be denied over something like that, though they didn't know about MIL's insurance because it was through State Farm.

That is weird. I could underwriting for the umbrella, but to deny primary auto coverage because your wife was also a listed driver elsewhere is puzzling. I mention the umbrella because those policies cover all vehicles that the insured has regular use of, and as a primary driver elsewhere, there no explaining away that your wife doesn't have regular use of that car.

Your example is puzzling.

 

[badatmath]

I can't explain engineernerds example at all but it may be some state law thing that is incompatible or they aren't accepting new business in that state. They should have explained the issue better so it was understandable.

Any company can deny a claim if they determine you were not proving full and accurate information. If you reasonably know you are on another policy you should disclose that at the time of application.

 

[Texas Proud]

I know someone was down on Progressive... but I have had good luck with them...

One of my sisters totaled out her car Monday... on Monday she talked to them about where the car was etc. and they sent someone to pick it up to take to their shop... on Weds they told her the value of her car which was higher than what KBB shows... it is about what the cars are listed on Cars website so she is looking to buy a similar car... quick and easy...

 

[fognostic]

I recently went through this process. It may be state specific, but in my state the owner of a car must obtain insurance for it and identify all household drivers that do not have their own car and own insurance, except that a spouse with a car titled to them in a household has the option of being on the other spouse's policy (marriage option in other words) that they obtained for their car titled to them.

Before I re-titled a car from me to my son, the rates on every car in our household included a risk premium for a newer driver, because my son was theoretically able to drive any car in our household. After my son reached the age of majority and could purchase his own insurance policy, we re-titled the car he drove to him. His policy only covers him driving his car, which is fine. Our auto and umbrella policy costs went way down, not only because we dropped an inexperienced driver and his car completely, but we also dropped insuring him as a sometimes driver of our other cars, which dropped his risk premium on those cars as well.

The upshot is he cannot drive our cars anymore - which is fine, he never did anyway. And vice-versa. There is coverage for very infrequent borrowing still, but we'd probably have to go through establishing that or risk an insurance company trying to prove it wasn't an exceptional case of borrowing the car. I don't want to be there, so we just don't drive each others cars.

If I or DW had a DWI or something - we don't, but if one of us did - we could split our policies and not drive each other's cars (one is titled to each of us) to save money in the same fashion by avoiding the DWI risk premium on both cars. If we did do that, we would for sure never drive each other's cars.

There is one wrinkle I'm aware of that might affect you. If you provide a car titled to and insured by you for a dependent's use, you can easily be sued for their actions due to your negligence in giving them access to the car (i.e., you knew or should have known they were bad drivers and not allowed them to drive knowing they would eventually cause that awful accident that just made all this relevant). If a car is titled to your dependent and is on their policy, the wrinkle is that this may not necessrily get you out of liability from their use of their car if it can be established that the dependent could not have become owner of their car and have their own insurance without your enabling it, which potentially makes you liable for their use of their car anyway. So turn that around and get ready to laugh - suppose you and DW were dependent on your son while he was living with you and it could be proved that he enabled you and DW to own and insure your cars. Well, then Progressive may have had a thin leg to stand on for wanting to add you as drivers to his policy.

Hope it worked out well with the new insurer. What Progressive was doing sounds bogus to me.