Whose side would you be on? UPDATE page 17 (?!?)

[Happyinwonerland]

If the insurance company found out that your DH was the primary user of a car registered to BIL, with insurance registered to BIL, would they still pay? It kind of sounds like you tried to skirt the law and got burned ( driving a car that wouldn't pass inspection).

If the car was so bad off, you should have been saving a little each month for the past 3 years, then you'd have a nice pocket of money to replace the rust bucket.

Take it as a life lesson and move on. Legally, you can't make BIL give you the money, and it doesn't sound like it was ever really your car.

 

[FayeW]

Seems to me that the real source of ******* is that he "gave" them the car as a wedding gift, but turns out he really didn't "give" them anything at all, because he retained ownership. If the wedding gift was presented as "my gift to you is the use of this vehicle, drive it til it dies" that is very different than "Congratulations, I'm giving you my old car!" Either way, having a vehicle to use for only upkeep and insurance costs was still generous, and I am sure not having to buy a vehicle or make payments has made a difference in OP's finances over the last 3 years. If this was Judge Judy she would say " you had the use of the vehicle and drove it for 3 years. Consider the insurance and repairs as the cost of a 3 year rental"

For the record. I think that if he gave you the car is a gift, he should honour that and give you the money, particularly because you paid the insurance. I think that it speaks to his character that he is willing to potentially damage a relationship with his brother over a $1000 for a car he didn't want anyway.

 

[kimblebee]

If the insurance company found out that your DH was the primary user of a car registered to BIL, with insurance registered to BIL, would they still pay? It kind of sounds like you tried to skirt the law and got burned ( driving a car that wouldn't pass inspection).

If the car was so bad off, you should have been saving a little each month for the past 3 years, then you'd have a nice pocket of money to replace the rust bucket.

Take it as a life lesson and move on. Legally, you can't make BIL give you the money, and it doesn't sound like it was ever really your car.

Hindsight is always 50/50. Yes, insurance will still pay because it’s on the car, not the driver. When he made the claim yesterday he was upfront when they asked who was driving. Just like a camera ticket goes to the car, not the driver of the car.

Agree 100%. I would add that we are only getting one side of the story. I wonder if the BIL thought he gifted the car or if he thought he was letting his brother use it. I'd love to hear his perspective. Maybe he really is a jerk but that assessment seems to go against him letting the OP use his car for 3 years.

I'm sorry OP but you really seem ungrateful. He let you use a car for three years. Now after your DH wrecks it, you also think that you should get the disbursement.

As far as you paying for repairs and insurance for 3 years, you were driving the car! If fixing it wasn't worth it, you could have returned it to BIL at any time and bought your own car. You chose to rely on goodwill.

I feel for the brother. He seems to be living out, "No good deed goes unpunished" with you.



I've read the whole thread as I'm sure others have. It seems repetitive because you aren't getting the affirmation that you were seeking. This should make you reassess your reaction but instead you're getting defensive.

No, not ungrateful or defensive. Just trying to get all the details in.

No, the bil did actually say the car was a gift..my husband still has the text message on an old phone.

If you knew the bil, you wouldn’t feel sympathy for him. He’s a bigot and he gladly calls things ‘gay’ for stupid. He’s really not a nice guy.

I’m not going to sue for the money or anything, clearly that would be going too far. For time #4..I decided last night to let it go and just see what happens. I’ll adjust my behaviour accordingly. I posted this thread just to see what others thought which is kinda the point of the boards lol

If I didn’t like the answers, I’d either delete the OP (even though it’s wuoted) or ask the mods to shut it down, or just ignore it.

 

[allison443]

If the insurance company found out that your DH was the primary user of a car registered to BIL, with insurance registered to BIL, would they still pay? .

This is another issue with “skirting the law”.
We have to tell our insurance company where the car is kept, who is the primary driver, and what purposes the car is used for. Was the company told your dh was the primary driver and the car was at your place?

 

[kimblebee]

This is another issue with “skirting the law”.

It’s not like we invented the loophole. People have been doing it for as long as I can remember. Not that that makes it right, just saying what it is.

 

[BLAZEY]

This is another issue with “skirting the law”.

This would be no different than lending your car to a friend or relative once and and having an accident, rather than for 3 years.

 

[kimblebee]

Seems to me that the real source of ******* is that he "gave" them the car as a wedding gift, but turns out he really didn't "give" them anything at all, because he retained ownership. If the wedding gift was presented as "my gift to you is the use of this vehicle, drive it til it dies" that is very different than "Congratulations, I'm giving you my old car!" Either way, having a vehicle to use for only upkeep and insurance costs was still generous, and I am sure not having to buy a vehicle or make payments has made a difference in OP's finances over the last 3 years. If this was Judge Judy she would say " you had the use of the vehicle and drove it for 3 years. Consider the insurance and repairs as the cost of a 3 year rental"

I could be reading this wrong but are you saying I’m mad because he didn’t give us a real wedding present? That’s not the case at all. We actually requested no gifts from anybody. Plus, he bought us a bbq in the summer so it’s not like he owed us anything.

If I read that wrong, I apologize.

 

[kimblebee]

This would be no different than lending your car to a friend or relative once and and having an accident, rather than for 3 years.

Yes, totally agree with you, IF it was just a loan. It wasn’t. That’s what I’m stuck on..the fact it was handed over as a wedding present, not just a loaner.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

No, not ungrateful or defensive. Just trying to get all the details in.

No, the bil did actually say the car was a gift..my husband still has the text message on an old phone.

If you knew the bil, you wouldn’t feel sympathy for him. He’s a bigot and he gladly calls things ‘gay’ for stupid. He’s really not a nice guy.

I’m not going to sue for the money or anything, clearly that would be going too far. For time #4..I decided last night to let it go and just see what happens. I’ll adjust my behaviour accordingly. I posted this thread just to see what others thought which is kinda the point of the boards lol

If I didn’t like the answers, I’d either delete the OP (even though it’s wuoted) or ask the mods to shut it down, or just ignore it.

It isn't sympathy.

He is the legal owner of the car. We don't make bigots give up their things simply because we don't like them.

To say nothing of the fact that you liked him enough when you were using his car.

 

[Happyinwonerland]

Hindsight is always 50/50. Yes, insurance will still pay because it’s on the car, not the driver. When he made the claim yesterday he was upfront when they asked who was driving. Just like a camera ticket goes to the car, not the driver of the car.



No, not ungrateful or defensive. Just trying to get all the details in.

No, the bil did actually say the car was a gift..my husband still has the text message on an old phone.

If you knew the bil, you wouldn’t feel sympathy for him. He’s a bigot and he gladly calls things ‘gay’ for stupid. He’s really not a nice guy.

I’m not going to sue for the money or anything, clearly that would be going too far. For time #4..I decided last night to let it go and just see what happens. I’ll adjust my behaviour accordingly. I posted this thread just to see what others thought which is kinda the point of the boards lol

If I didn’t like the answers, I’d either delete the OP (even though it’s wuoted) or ask the mods to shut it down, or just ignore it.

Yes, the car is what is insured, but at least here in the U.S. (I realize you are in Canada and I have no idea how it works there), the insurance rate is based on the driver's record. Someone with mutliple tickets and accidents would be charged a higher insurance premium than a person with a clean driving record. So, if the insurance company thinks your clean-driving BIL owned the car, but really your husband is the primary one driving it, whose record they have no idea about, the insurer might consider it fraud and void the coverage.

 

[kimblebee]

Yes, the car is what is insured, but at least here in the U.S. (I realize you are in Canada and I have no idea how it works there), the insurance rate is based on the driver's record. Someone with mutliple tickets and accidents would be charged a higher insurance premium than a person with a clean driving record. So, if the insurance company thinks your clean-driving BIL owned the car, but really your husband is the primary one driving it, whose record they have no idea about, the insurer might consider it fraud and void the coverage.

No, that’s not the way it works. I understand that no fault insurance is hard to get if you’re not used to it. My husbands licence will definitely go up, but the insurance on the car doesn’t.

 

[Marchand63]

Nope because the medical is covered by the universal provincial government medical and the extra is covered by the medical portion of the car insurance. The only time you can sue if the at fault person was uninsured. And it would only be for what wasn't covered by the province's medical plan which probably wouldn't be much if anything.

So in Canada I could kill someone with my car and they can’t so for pain & suffering or loss of say a spouse’s income? All I would get is medical expenses paid?

It’s not like we invented the loophole. People have been doing it for as long as I can remember. Not that that makes it right, just saying what it is.

This would be no different than lending your car to a friend or relative once and and having an accident, rather than for 3 years.

No it is very different. It is not an hour or even a day it was 3 years of them being the primary drivers. It is breaking the law.

 

[kimblebee]

It isn't sympathy.

He is the legal owner of the car. We don't make bigots give up their things simply because we don't like them.

To say nothing of the fact that you liked him enough when you were using his car.

No, I still didn’t like him lol

If you don’t like your Aunt Hilda, do you never use the blender she gave you as a wedding GIFT? Not a wedding loan, a gift.


Granted, I don’t like him, my posting history has made no secret of that. If it was my sister who had given us her old car as a gift, I’d still feel the same way.

 

[FayeW]

I could be reading this wrong but are you saying I’m mad because he didn’t give us a real wedding present? That’s not the case at all. We actually requested no gifts from anybody. Plus, he bought us a bbq in the summer so it’s not like he owed us anything.

If I read that wrong, I apologize.

No, I am saying that the issue is that it was presented as a gift, which implies that it's yours to keep forever, but if he is keeping the "windfall" of the insurance payout it's "as if" he's treating it like he never really gave it to you at all, but just let you use it.

 

[kimblebee]

So in Canada I could kill someone with my car and they can’t so for pain & suffering or loss of say a spouse’s income? All I would get is medical expenses paid?





No it is very different. It is not an hour or even a day it was 3 years of them being the primary drivers. It is breaking the law.

You would get funeral costs, and counselling costs, and medical treatment needed, and a flat rate for lost income. But no, you can’t sue above that.

 

[kimblebee]

No, I am saying that the issue is that it was presented as a gift, which implies that it's yours to keep forever, but if he is keeping the "windfall" of the insurance payout it's "as if" he's treating it like he never really gave it to you at all, but just let you use it.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. You’ve pretty much nailed it on the head.

 

[RC Fan]

Yes, the car is what is insured, but at least here in the U.S. (I realize you are in Canada and I have no idea how it works there), the insurance rate is based on the driver's record. Someone with mutliple tickets and accidents would be charged a higher insurance premium than a person with a clean driving record. So, if the insurance company thinks your clean-driving BIL owned the car, but really your husband is the primary one driving it, whose record they have no idea about, the insurer might consider it fraud and void the coverage.

I worked in the Canadian insurance industry for 17 years—our rules are the same as yours

 

[Marchand63]

You would get funeral costs, and counselling costs, and medical treatment needed, and a flat rate for lost income. But no, you can’t sue above that.

Well that stinks. In this case like our system much better

 

[BLAZEY]

So in Canada I could kill someone with my car and they can’t so for pain & suffering or loss of say a spouse’s income? All I would get is medical expenses paid?


Death is different than injury, but generally you can't sue, loss of wages while you are awarded while you are recovering. You can sue for wrongful death in that case.


No it is very different. It is not an hour or even a day it was 3 years of them being the primary drivers. It is breaking the law.

How is the insurance company going to prove that. DH & I have different insurance for our vehicles, he is not required to be listed on my insurance, and when DD turns 16, she can drive my car without being listed as well. Unless the laws change in the next 7 years.

 

[Disneylover99]

No, that’s not the way it works. I understand that no fault insurance is hard to get if you’re not used to it. My husbands licence will definitely go up, but the insurance on the car doesn’t.

But isn't there a possibility that your bil's insurance premiums may go up when it comes time for him to renew his insurance? I know for us, depending on your risk factors, many policies will forgive one at fault accident, but not all of them do.