EDIT: Thanks for the advice, everyone. I’ve decided not to file a police report as it seems like that won’t help and could cause more problems.
This is my first post here, so I hope I’m asking this the right way.
A couple of days ago, I canceled collision coverage on my car. Last night, my 15-year-old son took the car without asking and crashed it.
I called the insurance company to ask if this could be covered under comprehensive coverage, maybe as theft, but they said I’d need to file a police report first before they could answer.
Does anyone know if this might be covered? I don’t want to report my son to the police if the insurance will just deny the claim. But if they would cover it, I’ll file the report because I really need help getting a new car. If anyone has experience with this or any advice, I’d appreciate it.
Just to say, I don’t work in theft insurance, but from what I know, I doubt this will be covered, even with a police report. Your son lives in your house and has access to the keys. That’s usually considered ‘implied permission.’
If they did cover it, they’d probably press charges and try to recover their costs from him directly.
It was a bad decision by your son for sure, and he needs to make up for it somehow, but I don’t think having auto theft on his record is the answer. Especially for a car that wasn’t even worth keeping collision on.
Lane said:
Just to say, I don’t work in theft insurance, but from what I know, I doubt this will be covered, even with a police report. Your son lives in your house and has access to the keys. That’s usually considered ‘implied permission.’
If they did cover it, they’d probably press charges and try to recover their costs from him directly.
It was a bad decision by your son for sure, and he needs to make up for it somehow, but I don’t think having auto theft on his record is the answer. Especially for a car that wasn’t even worth keeping collision on.
@Lane I don’t think it’s fair to say there was ‘implied permission’ just because the keys were in the house and your son lives there. He’s underage and unlicensed! Where’s the line, does this apply if the kid is 10? It seems crazy that an unlicensed minor would have any permission, implied or not, to drive.
Cameron said: @Lane I don’t think it’s fair to say there was ‘implied permission’ just because the keys were in the house and your son lives there. He’s underage and unlicensed! Where’s the line, does this apply if the kid is 10? It seems crazy that an unlicensed minor would have any permission, implied or not, to drive.
It’s usually considered implied permission if a resident relative has access to the keys, and they aren’t locked away.
Cameron said: @Lane I don’t think it’s fair to say there was ‘implied permission’ just because the keys were in the house and your son lives there. He’s underage and unlicensed! Where’s the line, does this apply if the kid is 10? It seems crazy that an unlicensed minor would have any permission, implied or not, to drive.
It’s usually considered implied permission if a resident relative has access to the keys, and they aren’t locked away.
So, are we saying parents need to lock up their car keys to avoid implied permission from toddlers? That’s wild.
Hunter said: Cameron said: @Lane I don’t think it’s fair to say there was ‘implied permission’ just because the keys were in the house and your son lives there. He’s underage and unlicensed! Where’s the line, does this apply if the kid is 10? It seems crazy that an unlicensed minor would have any permission, implied or not, to drive.
It’s usually considered implied permission if a resident relative has access to the keys, and they aren’t locked away.
So, are we saying parents need to lock up their car keys to avoid implied permission from toddlers? That’s wild.
I mean, if you’d rather be responsible for whatever your kid does with the car, that’s your choice.
Cameron said: Hunter said: Cameron said: @Lane I don’t think it’s fair to say there was ‘implied permission’ just because the keys were in the house and your son lives there. He’s underage and unlicensed! Where’s the line, does this apply if the kid is 10? It seems crazy that an unlicensed minor would have any permission, implied or not, to drive.
It’s usually considered implied permission if a resident relative has access to the keys, and they aren’t locked away.
So, are we saying parents need to lock up their car keys to avoid implied permission from toddlers? That’s wild.
I mean, if you’d rather be responsible for whatever your kid does with the car, that’s your choice.
Yeah, insurance usually steps in to cover these kinds of things, even if it feels unfair.
@Feng Isn’t that why we have insurance though? If someone takes your car without permission, you shouldn’t be responsible. Otherwise, what’s the point of ‘use without permission’ laws?
Cameron said: @Feng Isn’t that why we have insurance though? If someone takes your car without permission, you shouldn’t be responsible. Otherwise, what’s the point of ‘use without permission’ laws?
If insurance denies the claim, saying it’s implied permissive use, the damages and any injuries won’t be covered, and the people affected could sue you. Insurance would then have to defend you. So eventually, it becomes more about legal protection.
Hunter said: @Cameron Look, it’s not a theft by definition if the person didn’t plan to keep the car. This situation doesn’t really fit that definition.
Actually, ‘use without authority’ is legally recognized as a form of theft in many places. Just because someone doesn’t plan to keep the car doesn’t mean it isn’t theft.
If the parents are willing to file a police report, insurance should treat it as any other theft case. It’s not like the kid had any permission, and this isn’t some minor violation. It’s a real issue when an unlicensed minor takes a car.
