Auto Insurance is Double for Teens of Divorced Single Parents
My sixteen-year-old daughter recently got her driver license, and I added her to my auto insurance policy. Despite her being a girl, getting good grades, driving only occasionally – her rate is through the roof, as it would be for any first-time driver.
At least I can split the cost with her mom. Right?
Wrong!
Insurance companies in California insure a driver for a specific car. They rated my daughter for my vehicle, but they won’t insure her if she drives her mom’s car. On the surface, that seems reasonable. We’re a two-home family and my daughter spends equal time with me and her mom. Two homes, two cars, two insurance policies.
Since she only lives with me half time, I should pay half as much to insure her. Right?
Wrong!
The insurance company explained it this way: your daughter has 24/7 access to your vehicle, so we need to insure her on it 24/7.
What a load of crap. My daughter only lives with me half time, and I only have one car. She has access less than half the time. Compared to other teens, that’s less than half as much chance for her to get into an accident in my car.
In a traditional (non-divorced) home with multiple cars, the teen gets rated for primarily driving one of the vehicles. However – if that car isn’t available, the teen is allowed to drive a secondary vehicle in the household, and they will be insured.
So, my ex-wife’s car be considered a secondary vehicle. Right?
Wrong!
The insurance company wants nothing to do with my ex-wife’s car. Unless… if my ex-wife moves her auto policy so we’re both insured by the same company, then they will create a policy that covers my daughter on both cars, without charging us double.
Sounds to me like single parents are being discriminated against by the insurance industry. Unless we’re willing to shill and sell an auto policy to our ex.
- You-Know-What-us Interruptus
- How to Talk to Your Daughter About Sex
- MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo IM – How Do Parents Eavesdrop Anymore?
- Single Parents Success Secrets
| 
Subscribe | © 2008-09 David Mott, DadsHouseBlog.com. All rights reserved.
Comment by Honey
| July 9th, 2008
The BF is still bitter that as a twenty-something male, his insurance is 50% again as much as mine (or his ex’s, despite the fact that she was in, seriously, OVER 20 car accidents during the 4 years they dated). It’s an unfair industry, absolutely.
Comment by Karianna
| July 9th, 2008
Huh. I never thought of it that way. It doesn’t sound as though it is a blatant policy against single parents, but rather an extremely annoying result of the inability to specify limits on driving. While mathematically the risk is split between the two households, the insurance company of course has its own risk formula, one which relies on the distance driven per year rather than who is actually doing the driving. The former can be “proved” while the latter cannot.
One “solution” (maybe?) is in favor of a teen who has her own car. That car is insured under either your ex’s or your policy, but the two of you split the cost (or, you do a three-way split with your daughter.) This is on the honor system, of course, because if on your policy you’d still be liable for the amount if your ex didn’t pay her portion, and your policy would be the one affected should any accident occur. But I understand that not all 16 year-olds get their own car! ;-)
Comment by Tonya
| July 9th, 2008
Whoa! That’s crazy! Well, at least the ex has to pay out the rear too. (did that sound harsh?)
Ugh! Something else I’ll have to deal with eventually. Thanks man.
Comment by Hadley
| July 9th, 2008
Insurance companies seem to find a way to stick it to us all, one way or another. Mine increased when I moved from San Francisco to Boulder, CO even though the cost of living was less there and I was hardly ever going be driving. And then of course my rates quadrupled when I moved back to CA (??) even though I live a mile from work and bike here every day rather than drive. Yeah, it was time to switch companies.
As much as it rankles, sounds like you and your ex need to be insured by the same company. I love Karianna’s “solution”…has your daughter suggested that one yet? :)
Comment by mama llama
| July 9th, 2008
Wow. That is an eye-opener. And as a child of a two-parent nuclear family that did not have her own car until her senior year of UNIVERSITY, hard to imagine any other possibilities.
I guess we’re all supposed to be made of moo-lah.
Thanks for the insight. Be well.
Comment by pajama momma
| July 9th, 2008
I was far into adulthood before I realized that it was called driver license and not driver’s license.
Comment by dadshouse
| July 9th, 2008
My daughter has definitely suggested getting her own car! She doesn’t have enough money to pull it off on her own, but maybe helping her out would save enough in insurance for the plan to pay off. We’ll look into it, for sure.
PJ Momma – you’re an adult? (just kidding! I know you can take it)
Comment by singleworkingmommy
| July 9th, 2008
I think the insurance industry discriminates against everyone. BITCHES!
Comment by peculiaroldbird
| July 9th, 2008
Wow, I’m so angry for you and all the single parents out there with teens!!! That is royally f#*ked up. So sorry to find this out. Insurance companies are right up there with pharmaceutical companies in my book – lying, cheating, stealing, assholes! the whole lot of them. now, no offense intended to the employees who work for them. ;)
Comment by pajama momma
| July 10th, 2008
PJ Momma – you’re an adult?
Only chronologically.
(just kidding! I know you can take it)
No need for the just kidding. I wouldn’t have it any other way. ;)
Comment by Bekah
| July 10th, 2008
David,
I am an insurance agent (please don’t throw stones!!!) and I know that every state is different. That being said, you should ask your insurance agent if they are rating her as the PRIMARY DRIVER, or OCCASIONAL driver on your vehicle. With her listed as the occasional driver the rate shouldn’t be as high. I know you said that you told them she only drives occasionally, but a lot of companies will list them as primary unless you tell them otherwise. But again, your state is probably different. And as it is YOUR vehicle then you should not be paying for her to be listed as primary. Also, look at what they have listed as her “use” of the vehicle. It’s either pleasure use, commute 5-10 (drive to work or school more than five miles one way) or commute 10+. Needless to say, the pleasure rate is the cheapest.
Also, if she took driver’s ed in school and passed you can take the certificate from the class to your insurance agent and it should be good for an additional discount. I’d check on that as well.
Rates are high for teens for a reason, unfortunately their reputation for accidents is entirely too risky to insure at a reasonable cost.
And insurance rates are high in general because of this “everyone owes me” mentality we have developed in America.
No matter what goes wrong or who is at fault someone is always suing someone else, and it’s not the individuals that have to pay, it’s their insurance company that shells out those millions. Even if the insurance company has to go to court and end up not paying out, they win the case, they still have thousands of dollars in expenses. They have to make up for that somehow, so rates climb. If you get into an accident, let the insurance company indemnify you, there’s no need to sue for millions just beacuse every one else does. Our society has created this problem, not the insurance companies.
Just wanted to defend the insurance industry a little bit. I hope you get some relief on your rate!!!
Bekah
Comment by mama llama
| July 10th, 2008
Great suggestions, Bekah. …good for all of us to keep in mind!
Comment by whatmenthink
| July 10th, 2008
Bekah:
State Farm will automatically pair the highest risk driver with the most expensive vehicle when in a family.
DadsHouse:
That is definitely unfair to you and your Ex. Maybe you should shop around with an Independent Agent and see if you can get something better?
Comment by dadshouse
| July 10th, 2008
Bekah – thanks for the great advice! They do have her listed as an “occasional” driver. I’ll have to check whether it’s pleasure or commuter or what.
WMT – State Farm told me they are charging what California legally allows them to charge. They suggested I write to the state Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner. I just read an article today that said he told Allstate to reduce their obscene home owner rates http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-allstate10-2008jul10,0,3022672.story Sounds like he’s on the consumer’s side. I’ll definitely send him a note.
Comment by Cathouse Teri
| July 11th, 2008
Okay, you’re kidding, right? You seriously think they should only make you pay half because she only lives with you half the time? Do you realize how problematic that policy would be??
Comment by LiteralDan
| July 11th, 2008
It seems like in California of all places, where everything seems to be cutting-edge, they would be all over a way to make this work. I’m not foolish enough to suggest that an insurance company would voluntarily do ANYthing in their customers’ interests that wasn’t first in their financial interests, but that customers statewide would demand it, and they would be forced to be suddenly struck with a good idea of fixing the problem. There are enough people, and consequently enough divorced people, in California to make this happen.
I hope that your wife is at least helping with the cost, along with your daughter herself, of course.
Comment by Cathouse Teri
| July 11th, 2008
Also, it is my understanding that if you own two vehicles, ANY licensed drivers in the household must be insured on those vehicles if they are going to drive them at all. Under any circumstances. If it were the case that you could call one vehicle “primary” and the other “secondary” and then only insure her on the “primary” vehicle ~ then she drives the “secondary” vehicle almost all the time, because you are using the “primary” vehicle and it’s, as you say, “not available,” she would be basically insured for free on that vehicle.
The insurance company is totally right about saying she has access to the vehicle 24/7. It’s the only way they can see it. What would you have them do? Ask you for a weekly schedule on the days she will be at your house, and then not insure her on the other days, when she is supposed to be with her mother? That makes no sense at all.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think insurance companies f*&king SUCK the big one! I hate, hate, hate the insurance business. It is designed to SCREW everyone. (yeah, I feel strongly about it) But we choose to play the game, and there are only so many ways you can play it. You simply cannot expect insurance companies (or anyone, for that matter) to conform to the situation you are in.
Comment by dadshouse
| July 11th, 2008
Teri – yes, either they charge me half, or cover both cars.
When the mom and dad are in the same house, the teen driver gets added to one car as the primary driver. However, on occasions when that car is not available, the teen can drive the other car, no problem. They are covered, and the rate does not change.
So in effect, the teen has access to two cars for the price of one. In our situation, they have access to two cars for the price of two. Totally unfair.
LiteralDan – my ex is not helping with the cost to insure our daughter on my car, because she is forced to pay the cost to insure her on her own car. It sucks.
I’ll let you all know what the insurance commissioner says. My daughter can’t be in two places at once. She can’t drive two cars at the same time. Insurance is ripping us off.
Comment by Cathouse Teri
| July 14th, 2008
Dad, it’s not a matter of mom and dad living in the same house or not. It’s a matter of daughter living in two houses, where there are two cars. Two addresses. Two cars. Two policies.
Comment by dadshouse
| July 28th, 2008
Quick followup – the inurance commissioner’s office is investigating. This prompted my insurance company headquarters office to call me and try to address my concerns (i.e. get the insurance commissioner off their back.)
They explained that my daughter is rated as an occasional driver, meaning she has less than 5 years experience and uses the car less than 25% of the time. They agreed that since she’s with me only half time she would benefit from a different categorization, say for drivers using the car less than 10% of the time, but no such categorization exists.
Their advice for me to save money: take her off the policy and hope she doesn’t get in an accident! WTF!
Problem is, legally, all California drivers have to be insured. And taking her off the policy doesn’t seem smart, anyways, because accidents can happen.
I’ll update more when I hear back from the insurance commissioner’s office.