I have a Big Brother driver’s license / Insurance question:

I was just told that in Maine, if you have a drivers license and there is a registered car AT THE HOUSE, not your own, you MUST be listed on a policy.

For instance, if you live with someone with an insured car, and you hadn’t gotten your drivers license until say, just now and don’t even own a car, you MUST go on that policy or another policy.

So effectively, you can’t even legally live with an insured driver (if you have your license) without being listed on one policy or another EVEN IF YOU DONT OWN A CAR!!!!

WTF? Can this be true? Is this big government run amok?

Insurance company lobbyists earning their keep.

In theory, anybody in a given household "has access" to all vehicles there.  That is the rationale.

I guess that means that when Cameron took his dad's Ferrari for a little spin, it wasn't auto theft.

So you can’t just have your damn drivers license if you HAPPEN to live with someone with a car without being put on their policy?

I seem to remember a rule when I lived in Ohio that if there was a licensed driver in the house they either needed to be added to the policy, or specifically excluded from the policy.  I dont know if that was a state rule or carrier rule.

IANAL but this can't be legal.

At the risk of being a bit glib, this sounds like a question for an insurance agent, not an internet forum comprised mostly of people who live elsewhere (even if some live there).

I'm sure you can get plenty of indignation and shouting, but probably not much in the way of accurate answers.

Pretty sure that was the case in Minnesota when I got my license in 1972.

Edit: for the children of the registered owner, that is.  I don't know if it applied to unrelated persons living in the same household.

Dave M said:

IANAL but this can't be legal.

This angers me beyond words.

logdog said:

I seem to remember a rule when I lived in Ohio that if there was a licensed driver in the house they either needed to be added to the policy, or specifically excluded from the policy.  I dont know if that was a state rule or carrier rule.

I did run into that.  I pointed out that (at the time) both of the vehicles on my policy had manual transmissions, and the other people in my house could not drive them.  This was insufficient.

This thread is useless without pictures...

...of the specific text of the law.

Well, I can’t exclude my spouse off my policy even if they have their own policy. Which in my case significantly increases my rate....

I started the thread. I don’t fully care about the intricacies so much as this is even POSSIBLE.

Im more interested in the discussion of this kind of stupidity. Just to know you guys have anecdotal knowledge of these things is enough for me to believe there’s even SOME truth to it.

I went through this in CT about 25 years ago when my son (Rob) got a license. I was told I needed to pay an additional $3000.00 per year starting immediately once the company knew Rob had a license even without adding a car. This all started when I contacted the agent to find out roughly how much it would cost to add an old car and new driver to the "family" policy. I explained that he had not driven mine or the wife's vehicles and wouldn't be driving them. Insurance company didn't care and I was told I had to pay the 3 large based on insuring Rob on the wife's new car because he lived at the same address. If I didn't pay up they threatened canceling the policy.

I didn't have the extra money at the time nor did Rob so our only short term option was to have the poor kid turn in his drivers license to the DMV and get a form from DMV stating so to copy & fax to the insurance company. After that we set up a different legal address for Rob and got a separate policy to cover him on his car that was less than half of what the increase on our family policy would have been. Took several months to get it all straightened out.

Ransom said:

At the risk of being a bit glib, this sounds like a question for an insurance agent, not an internet forum comprised mostly of people who live elsewhere (even if some live there).

I'm sure you can get plenty of indignation and shouting, but probably not much in the way of accurate answers.

Exactly.  Just a bunch of angry spew...not that we haven't seen it before. 

Though I don't know ME laws off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure what was posted isn't quite accurate.

Dave M said:

IANAL but this can't be legal.

I think it is legal now since the Supreme Court knocked down the sodomy law in Texas a few years ago.

But to the point of the original question, I'm pretty sure that's what happens when your kids get driver's licenses.  I've never heard it about unrelated persons, but I've never had anyone unrelated living with me. 

Is there a way to have a second address, create an LLC at that address and register and insure the "expensive" cars that way?  I fear for the day when I have 18, 17, and 16 year old girls living under my roof with the various and sundry cars that they aren't allowed to drive...

Jesus guys, it’s just a conversation we’re having. I like perfectly accurate information as much as the next guy but as I’ve said before here, I’m much more interested in the discussion of whether things like this are even POSSIBLE in the most freedom-loving country on earth. 

Please feel free to contribute anecdotal stories and things you believe to be true. This isn’t a court of law and no one is on trial.

This conversation was with my sister in law who lives in Maine. She didn’t have definitive proof either. By your logic I should’ve ended the conversation immediately.

I live in maine with two teenage drivers. Sadly, right now we are down to four cars and a truck. Our ins wanted to know who drives what.  The kids primarily drive the focus st, while I primarily drive the supercharged mustang.  I don't all know who in their minds drives the miata, truck and focus s v t.  We were not told anything out right, but for some reason I thought that they would call b s if I said they only drove one car.  They really don't drive the mustang,  but you know of course my son has.  Isn't it reasonable that whoever lives in a house would or at least might drive what is there, at least occasionally?  I know I felt sand bagged when USAA called and asked about the kids, then I realized they had their eyes on the kids birth dates.  For what it's worth , street survival school didn't help our rates.

ebonyandivory said:

This conversation was with my sister in law who lives in Maine.

So we better understand the situation, is this other person with a license her son or daughter, or is it someone else?

Instead of reacting viscerally maybe we can breakdown the problem.  

In most states the insurance is attached to the car, not the driver.  There are some policies that follow the driver, but my understanding is that this type of policy is rare.  

If we assume that the policy is for a car, then it follows that any accident caused by that vehicle would be the responsibility of that insurance company, regardless of who is driving the car (e.g., friend, spouse, son, in laws, etc.).  As such, it seems reasonable that if there are other people in the family who have driver's licenses, an insurance company would want to ensure that anyone who has easy access to the car should be assessed a cost of potentially using that car.  Now this could be an *insurance company requirement*, and not a legal requirement (so you know, not big or small govt thing...).  I'm not a lawyer, and don't live in ME, so this is speculation on my part, but if an insurance company gets burned enough times by paying for accidents caused by non-policy holders then sooner or later this is the end result.  Is it that hard to imagine that some folks try to save money by suggesting that their 16 year old son will never drive their Camaros when in reality we know that a percentage of those people are lying?

This is from the Maine govt website: "My teenager just got his license. The company has added him to my policy even though he's not going to drive my cars. Can they do that?

Yes. Any resident holding a drivers license is considered to have access to the household vehicles. Your policy includes any resident family member as an insured under your policy. As the policy automatically provides coverage, the insurer is allowed to consider any resident driver when establishing the rates for your policy. "

https://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/faq/auto_ins.html

This suggests that insurance companies "is allowed to", but are not legally required to, add someone with a driver's license to the policy.  Also note that this covers family members, not roommates.  Without specific policies it'll be difficult to have a further understanding of this.  

Alternatively we could have a system where the policy always follows the driver and not the vehicle.  But if that were the car, the law probably needs to be a federal one rather than a state one (since mixing the two would be incredibly inefficient from a legal perspective).  Then we'd be forced to check driving licenses every time someone new gets into the driver's seat.  Not sure that's a better solution.  

Lastly, freedom or not, an auto insurance company is not obligated to insure an individual and you're not obligated to go with a specific carrier.  If you don't like their quote, go somewhere else.  If you don't like insurance, take public transportation or walk or bike or whatever.  But last I checked driving is not one of the rights protected by the constitution or interpreted as such by the Supreme Court.  

Edit:  Just thought about this - if insurance companies did NOT do this, then you'd have nobody except moms having insurance policies in any family.  Why add anyone else?  Even the dad is likely an increase in risk.

In reply to bcp2011 :

Thank you for bringing actual facts into this thread.

Ransom said:

This thread is useless without pictures...

...of the specific text of the law.

Who says it's a law?  It could be the policy at that particular carrier.

I say, find the specific text in the contract.

bcp2011 said:

...This is from the Maine govt website: "My teenager just got his license. The company has added him to my policy even though he's not going to drive my cars. Can they do that?

Yes. Any resident holding a drivers license is considered to have access to the household vehicles. Your policy includes any resident family member as an insured under your policy. As the policy automatically provides coverage, the insurer is allowed to consider any resident driver when establishing the rates for your policy. "

https://www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance/faq/auto_ins.html

This suggests that insurance companies "is allowed to", but are not legally required to, add someone with a driver's license to the policy.  Also note that this covers family members, not roommates.  Without specific policies it'll be difficult to have a further understanding of this....

Just bolding these parts. Any resident of the household can be forced onto your policy. Residency is usually anyone who lives in your home for a month or longer (depends on tenancy laws, but a month is a safe bet everywhere even without a lease). This can include college roommates or the person who you rent a room to later in life, or your partner married-or-not. It's not family-only; it's everyone.

Just clarifying, because I've had to exclude my brother from my policies and be excluded on his when he lived with me for a year. I also had to deliberately add my now-wife to mine.

driving could probably fall under freedom of association and certainly travel all God given and whilst maybe not explicitly worded in the Constitution I'm pretty certain the Framers intended them to be respected.  edit. Article Ten would then allow the States to do what they want but most of their Constitutions likely follow ol' Virginnys or the 'big one' pretty closely. 

Now that I'm in a new place I wonder if my insurance company will send me out an ominous letter stating they've noticed no other licensed driver in the household or will the flipped script that now 'benefits' them not be worth anything to me?  I don't know if they were able to access his insurance status but they sure didn't respect my privacy by noting his 'licensed' presence in my old household.  

I guess they also do license by car as the rates for three are almost the same as each other not that I've really looked too closely in a while as I just pay the bill. 

Kylini said:

Just bolding these parts. Any resident of the household can be forced onto your policy. Residency is usually anyone who lives in your home for a month or longer (depends on tenancy laws, but a month is a safe bet everywhere even without a lease). This can include college roommates or the person who you rent a room to later in life, or your partner married-or-not. It's not family-only; it's everyone.

Just clarifying, because I've had to exclude my brother from my policies and be excluded on his when he lived with me for a year. I also had to deliberately add my now-wife to mine.

I should have been clearer.  I did not mean to say that it did not cover roommates.  What I should have said was that the FAQ states the family is covered but was silent on other situations such as roommates and therefore we need a specific policy to understand whether other situations are covered, if at all. 

Also, this was just for Maine, so your circumstances may vary in other states.  Thanks for the clarification.