i have two cars at home and am buying a third car because my daughter is driving now, and she is 17. the salesman told me if we add a third car without mentionig my daughter, my car insurance bill would me much less. He said if they ask we will tell them the truth which will cause the amount of insurance to go up. He said there is no penality if they find out. Is this morally ok.
If you have to ask…
your policy probably specifically excludes a driver residing in your home who is not named on the policy, and if they find out you have a driver in the high risk age group who regularly uses one of the cars they are within their rights to void the policy because of fraud.
I work in the insurance industry as an investigator and I can give you a definitive answer.
I also refer you to your specific policy.
NO, it is not morally OK. By not naming a regular driver and therefore not being charged the rates due for the driver, this is called “rate evasion” which is a form of insurance fraud. It’s also called “misrepresentation”.
Some insurance companies will not cover your loss and may void your policy altogether if the misrepresentation is discovered. Please refer to your policy and look specifically for the wording regarding misrep.
I recently learned that most companies, when they discover forms of rate evasion will actually deny the claim where the misrepresentation/rate evasion is discovered.
You also run into the following issue: if your child is driving and is involved in an accident (and you live in a no-fault state), they will have to investigate to determine if the driver should be covered under your policy. If they operate as my company does, they will figure out that the teenage driver lives in your home and is a regular driver and they will cover the medical bills. OK, fine. But then they will rate that driver back to policy inception and charge you the back fees.
This is the most common type of fraud and people are caught all the time.
i do not know if we are responsible for the action of other people. if the salesman said it is ok i do not know if we are obligated to investigate, because the salesman represent the co. for example i talk to a lot of sales people at work sometimes they allow things by the co. and i am not sure if this is ok with the co. or not, or when the eucharistic minister gives the eucharist to a person, and he knows, he has commited a sin a day before, he still has to give him the eucharist, or may be buying mutual funds, which are probably investing in an immoral companies.
I agree with the earlier poster. I think if you are questioning it, then there is a problem.
If you are trying to save money, tell you daughter what I tell mine. You can have a car when you can afford the increase to my insurance and take care of the car with maintenance and gas.
If you just “give” the child a car, they will not respect it as much as if they worked for it.
…don’t you do this… you wouldn’t respect yourself later, not to mention the example you set for your child… i think you know the right answer in your heart… that’s part of “the God given conscience thing” I know that you will do what you should…
Peace my friend…
[quote=labbo606]i do not know if we are responsible for the action of other people. if the salesman said it is ok i do not know if we are obligated to investigate, because the salesman represent the co. for example i talk to a lot of sales people at work sometimes they allow things by the co. and i am not sure if this is ok with the co. or not, or when the eucharistic minister gives the eucharist to a person, and he knows, he has commited a sin a day before, he still has to give him the eucharist, or may be buying mutual funds, which are probably investing in an immoral companies.
Are you suggesting that because the salesman says it’s OK, then it must be OK?
I hope I am misunderstanding you.
The salesman’s job is to sell cars–nothing more.
It’s the insurance company’s job to insure your vehicle, and they are bound by state law in their policies and you are bound by contract under the insurance company to 1. know the policy, and 2. abide by the policy, which is equal to abiding by the law.
The salesman can tell you until he’s blue in the fact that something is OK, but ultimately, if your policy is voided out due to your own actions, then you are on the hook. Which means if your child rearends someone and your insurance company would otherwise pay but for your misrepresentation, you get to pay not only for your own vehicle but the not at fault vehicle. And any injuries to the parties in the other vehicle.
Yourselv–out of pocket.
Do not rely on the advice of people who do not have your interests at heart.
Insurance fraud is theft, and therefore it is a sin.
This is an odd crime; people who would never consider walking into a store to steal gum, or clothing or what have you, or who would not leave a cab without paying for the ride actually go out of their way to avoid paying premiums or claiming damages to a vehicle which are not related to the loss.
Now, if you go ahead and disregard this advice to do what you know is right, then fine. But it’s on your conscience. I’ve told you the physical and financial consequences of this action, but keep in mind the spiritual consequences.
Would you honestly be able to go up to Jesus and tell him all about how you defrauded the insurance company by omitting information as to who is driving that vehicle? What do you think he would say to you?
I ask you to consider the moral/ spiritual consequences AND the example you’re setting for your offspring.
And again, READ YOUR POLICY. You sign that you agree and you are under contract, not with the salesperson for your insurance, but with the insurance carrier. Is the salesman going to be paying? I think not.
You ARE obligated to investigate because you are responsible for the coverages on your vehicle and the exclusions.
If you use your vehicle to deliver magazines, pizzas, etc…it is not covered under a private policy.
Mechanical wear and tear are not covered.
Any misrepresentation regarding the policy or a claim is against the law and will either cause a denial of the claim or for the policy to be voided.
Failure to cooperate with a claims investigation, give statements, turn over documentation, etc., can also be grounds for a claim denial.
ETC. Please read your insurance policy because like it or not, you, not the salesman, are responsible for the contents of that contract.
Make no mistake about it.
It would certainly be wrong. The salesman is interested only in selling you the car…
You might want to evaluate the rates if your daughter got a policy in her own name. The difference might NOT be that great.
I’m not sure if the salesman is the salesman for the car or for the insurance policy (there are some, I’m sure, who would be willing to pull the ‘wink, wink’ routine, but it’s plenty unethical).
Mine aren’t old enough for this to be an issue yet, but I’d require my children to 1) cover the cost of the insurance increase 2) qualify for the ‘good student’ discount every term (which may well negate a substantial portion of the difference between a teenager and an older driver being added) 3) cover the costs of maintenance (oil changes, annual inspection and whatever is required to pass inspection, brake pads, etc.) and 4) cover the cost of gas.
Actually, I would require 1, 2, and 4 (for the times they used the car) if they were simply driving one of the family vehicles rather than a car specifically owned by/purchased for the child. Oh, and the first time that they were involved in a claim incident for which they were at fault (even in no-fault states, fault does matter–when I was in an accident in '96 due to the other guy running a red light, the accident was judged his fault and although my car was totalled, we had no change in our rates), their access to our cars would be over, and we’d cancel them on our insurance (yes, that does mean they would lose all driving privileges–we will provide them with bus schedules and they’d still have their bicycles).
You ABSOLUTELY cannot use the argument about the Eucharist here. No matter who gives out the Eucharist, it is the BODY OF CHRIST, himself, which is never profaned by humanity. How disgraceful that you would throw out such a disrespectful comment to cover yourself in this desire of yours to save money.
this was not my intention, do not be scrupulous.
[quote=labbo606]i have two cars at home and am buying a third car because my daughter is driving now, and she is 17. the salesman told me if we add a third car without mentionig my daughter, my car insurance bill would me much less. He said if they ask we will tell them the truth which will cause the amount of insurance to go up. He said there is no penality if they find out. Is this morally ok.
The salesman doesn’t have to worry if your daughter isn’t covered in an accident because you didn’t submit her name; so, of course he’d like to make an additional sale. But that is secondary. As a follower of Christ, you should always be honest in all of your dealings.
There are thirty-one chapters in Proverbs, read one per day. It has changed my life for the better. God is good.
You can sin by both commission and omission. If you neglect to tell someone something known to you and important to the topic at hand, you have still lied by omission. Such an omission would reflect poorly on your character; I hope you won’t do it.
[quote=labbo606]or when the eucharistic minister gives the eucharist to a person, and he knows, he has commited a sin a day before, he still has to give him the eucharist,
In the training process for the role of Extrodinary Minister of Holy Communion, those being trained are told specifically that they are not to refuse to give communion to those who come to receive it. There is a sensible process for reporting concerns if you have them; however, to refuse communion would be an act of excommunication. An Extrodinary Minister of Holy Communion, of course, may not excommunicate. That, when it is done, is done by the bishops.
not at all
You bring up a good point and I really need to clarify this because you are not understanding what “no-fault” means.
The term “NO-FAULT” does NOT refer to LIABILITY.
What NO-FAULT means is this: regardless of who has liability (negligence) in the accident, all parties are to go through their own insurance companies for MEDICAL BENEFITS. That’s all.
LIABILITY refers to who caused the accident, or at least who has the majority of the negligence. The driver who is liable for the accident, or has the majority of the negligence for causing the accident pays for the loss.
There are times when liability is in question, such as in an intersection accident when both drivers claim the other had a red light, etc., and in these cases they often go to arbitrations and a panel determines liability.
But the decision on liability never affects the no-fault laws. In NO_FAULT states, regarding injuries, the person who is at fault, if the accieent caused an injury to the other party, that other party still goes through his/.her own insurance company to pay the bills. However, the potential for a Bodily Injury claim is present and that person needs to meet a state threshold to qualify to have a claim against the at-fault party.
Example: rear end collision, clear liability. The person in front has severe whiplash…after $4,000 in treatment, diagnosis of a permanent injury, sever injury (ie broken bone)disability, dismemberment or death, that person will have a bodily injury claim. This differs from TORT states where the not at fault party has a bodily injury claim from the first dollar spent for medical treatment.
Did not mean to hijack the thread but these terms are very commonly misunderstood and misrepresented.