I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be the one to pay for the injuries.
But if it's the car that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be listed on the policy? The way I understand it is even if I'm not listed on someone's policy and I'm driving their car, their auto insurance covers my fuck up when I cause an accident.
Doesn't seem right, but I suppose that's the way it works.
Drivers are listed for two reasons. The first is because a big chunk of car insurance is liability insurance. The second is because the probability of the insurance company having to pay to repair or replace your car depends on the likelihood one of the drivers will cause an accident.
This is all made more complicated by the fact that personal injury lawsuits are a numbers game. If the driver didn't have insurance and their estate has very little money, it doesn't matter that making them liable is a slam dunk case. It's not worth the effort. On the other hand, if the car owner has insurance, is alive, and has a lifetime income potential in the tens of millions of dollars, that's worth a lawsuit even if the probability of success is lower.
It feels scummy, but most personal injury lawyers are investing in cases. They'll be happy to take a lower probability chance on a bigger return. It's not all that different from venture capital, although you could argue pretty easily that VCs are a more positive force for social good and value creation.
If your business model requires new rulings by the courts, then you better have deep pockets.
Either the owner pay as if she wasn't doing a business, or the dead guy's pay as if he was driving a rental. Mine is pretty basic and i can pay my deductible for rentals.
It also seems from the article that they haven't determined who was at fault.
Liability is the "required" part of insurance in most states. It follows you from car to car.
What has likely happened is that they person who rented the car didn't have insurance of their own. That seems likely, since it's kind of pointless to have automotive liability insurance if you don't own a car. Even more so if you're used to purchasing insurance at the point of sale when you rent a car.
Car insurance generally "follows the car." If you lend your car to your buddy and he gets into an accident, your insurer is the primary. If you don't have insurance on the car, then if he has insurance it may cover some of the associated costs. That all gets settled in court.
Collision is not required, but liability is.
Now it is true that when you sign an insurance policy, part of the contract makes the insurance company liable for the driver if he is in an accident in another vehicle and for whatever reason there isn't a primary or the primary uses subrogation to recoup damages from that insurer.
But that is not the most common case, and certainly shouldn't be used as the standard for what to expect would happen in this case.
Have you ever heard that women's insurance rates are typically more expensive than men's because they lend their cars more often to others? Now why would that be if the drivers were responsible as opposed to the vehicle insurer? Again, civil law is not black and white. Insurance companies have teams of lawyers in every major city in the country to fight their way out of claims when possible and certainly there are times that they succeed in recouping some damages from other insurers. My point was that this is not the norm. The primary insurance company is the first in line when a claim is to be made.
From the article: "According to a preliminary police report, their car was hit by an oncoming car that seemed to have been traveling south in their northbound lane. The report concluded that Mr. Fortuna would be found at fault."