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

[MomOfDisneyPrincess]

Bummer. Guess we won't hear the end of this story. I'm guessing that car wasn't worth the $500 deductible, so perhaps all this angst is all over nothing.

 

[mom2rtk]

As stated many times previously car insurance differs from province to province. Nothing is required nationwide.
Our province (the OP and I) happens to be a government run car insurance province. You can only buy car insurance from the government.

Pardon me if I'm being dense. If it's not required, why would someone carry full collision coverage on a car that would only net $500 if totaled? Is there only one level of coverage offered?

 

[LilyWDW]

Don't try to get around the system (not doing repairs to transfer a title as needed) and then cry when it comes back to bite you. Take responsibility for the choices you made. Not getting the title and insurance in your name, no matter the reason, was dumb. Now you are learning that lesson.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Pardon me if I'm being dense. If it's not required, why would someone carry full collision coverage on a car that would only net $500 if totaled? Is there only one level of coverage offered?

My reply was focused on how you were asking about national requirements when this is done at the provincial level.

The basic insurance covers up to $50,000. You can buy more if needed.

 

[mom2rtk]

My reply was focused on how you were asking about national requirements when this is done at the provincial level.

The basic insurance covers up to $50,000. You can buy more if needed.

Maybe I'm still being dense. Does that lowest level coverage include collision? Or is that just liability and medical? Still trying o see if it's a choice one makes to insure for collision with an older car without much value.

 

[tvguy]

Maybe I'm still being dense. Does that lowest level coverage include collision? Or is that just liability and medical? Still trying o see if it's a choice one makes to insure for collision with an older car without much value.

My question too. I am guessing from @CdnCarrie 's reply, if I am understanding correctly, that everyone gets up to $50,000 collision coverage whether they want it or not. You can't buy individual components of insurance like you can in the U.S. or decline collision coverage if you don't need or want it.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Maybe I'm still being dense. Does that lowest level coverage include collision? Or is that just liability and medical? Still trying o see if it's a choice one makes to insure for collision with an older car without much value.

My question too. I am guessing from @CdnCarrie 's reply, if I am understanding correctly, that everyone gets up to $50,000 collision coverage whether they want it or not. You can't buy individual components of insurance like you can in the U.S. or decline collision coverage if you don't need or want it.

Sorry. Yes everyone gets the basic $50,000 collision insurance. That's standard and mandatory to register a vehicle in the province.
TVguy is correct. You cannot buy individual components for the most part. There are some like loss of use option and increase in 3rd party liability.

It's pretty straightforward as we don't "shop" for insurance in this province.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

Actually it is completely and utterly different. Now granted I do not know how Canadian insurance works and the limited information found on this thread I'm still in the "can't comprehend" frame of mind but that's ok.

At least how it works here in the U.S. if you lend your car to a friend or relative once and they have an accident it's called Permissive Use. You gave permission for so and so to use your vehicle, it is at your own risk but as an average (everyone should be checking their own insurance policies) and typically speaking Permissive Use is a covered loss.

However, should the insurance company find out that someone had regular usage of a vehicle it is not Permissive Use at all.

*again how it works typically in the U.S. but just speaking to your "no different" comment.

If it’s his car than he should have been paying the insurance and repairs on it.

Not necessarily.

I bought my car when I was 17 and due to that the title had to be registered in my mom's name. Now we were a bit lazy and didn't get the ownership transfered to my name until around age 22 but I paid the insurance for that vehicle from age 17+ as well as any repairs and normal maintainence aside from the random times my mom felt like paying for the oil change. It was my vehicle, I drove it 100% of the time however the title was in my mom's name for multiple years. Now legally it was her vehicle in a sense that she could drive it at any time, etc. For insurance purposes while the title was in her name the insurance check would be written out to her and her alone.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Actually it is completely and utterly different. Now granted I do not know how Canadian insurance works and the limited information found on this thread I'm still in the "can't comprehend" frame of mind but that's ok.

At least how it works here in the U.S. if you lend your car to a friend or relative once and they have an accident it's called Permissive Use. You gave permission for so and so to use your vehicle, it is at your own risk but as an average (everyone should be checking their own insurance policies) and typically speaking Permissive Use is a covered loss.

However, should the insurance company find out that someone had regular usage of a vehicle it is not Permissive Use at all.

*again how it works typically in the U.S. but just speaking to your "no different" comment.

Not necessarily.

I bought my car when I was 17 and due to that the title had to be registered in my mom's name. Now we were a bit lazy and didn't get the ownership transfered to my name until around age 22 but I paid the insurance for that vehicle from age 17+ as well as any repairs and normal maintainence aside from the random times my mom felt like paying for the oil change. It was my vehicle, I drove it 100% of the time however the title was in my mom's name for multiple years. Now legally it was her vehicle in a sense that she could drive it at any time, etc. For insurance purposes while the title was in her name the insurance check would be written out to her and her alone.

Again it's not how "Canadian insurance" works. There is no Canadian insurance. This is a PROVINCIAL program.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Again it's not how "Canadian insurance" works. There is no Canadian insurance. This is a PROVINCIAL program.

I was pretty clear I didn't know how Canadian insurance worked completely but how it would work in the U.S. so no need to get all snappy.

But if you want to clarify things please do so because otherwise I have no idea which part of my statement you find issue with.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You could make the case for both sides honestly: Family relations but then the practical level of inability to switch a vehicle's title over due to its condition.

But personally speaking I'd side with the brother-in-law; opinions were asked and that would be mine. It was a huge risk to keep the vehicle under his name due to its condition and as such certain concessions had to be made. It seems like it was a no-win situation from the beginning though and probably should have been viewed as that. I'm sure having a vehicle to drive, even the condition it was in, that got you from point A to point B was probably the more salient thought at that time of the wedding rather than all the other things.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I was pretty clear I didn't know how Canadian insurance worked completely but how it would work in the U.S. so no need to get all snappy.

But if you want to clarify things please do so because otherwise I have no idea which part of my statement you find issue with.

Just clarifying that we do not have a national system of insurance. This socialized program is done at the provincial level. There is no "Canadian" insurance.
Semantics |I guess. Your "American insurance" is just private insurance and nothing to do with America.

I wanted to make clear that this program is unique to the province and not all provinces are as socialist as we are here.

I think when you (and others) kept referring to "Canadian insurance" it made me think you thought we had a national socialist system of insurance. Confusing wording as it varies so much from province to province.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Just clarifying that we do not have a national system of insurance. This socialized program is done at the provincial level. There is no "Canadian" insurance.
Semantics |I guess. Your "American insurance" is just private insurance and nothing to do with America.

I wanted to make clear that this program is unique to the province and not all provinces are as socialist as we are here.

Ok. But what about my comments was incorrect so that I may understand better.

~Do you have permissive use vs regular, habitual use? That part of my comment was related to someone saying lending your car one time to so and so was the same as lending your car for 3 years in terms of an accident.

~Do you have requirements/mandates at the 'provential' level that if one is a registered owner then one must pay for insurance and repairs? That part of my comment was that it is possible for one to be an owner of a vehicle as far as on the title (registered owner) and yet it not be the responsibility of the registered owner to pay for insurance and repairs (i.e. me being 17 and unable to be on the title on my own until I was 18 however it was me driving the vehicle each day and it was me paying for maintainence and repairs).

 

[Pacolovestacos]

This isn't a should question. As has been said, the money is his (BIL). Now if you're asking me if your BIL should give you the money, yes he should. I don't see why he wouldn't unless he's desperate for cash.

 

[John VN]

Haven't read all replies but this is so much a Judge Judy or Judge Milian-People's Court case. BIL has taken the risk since title and insurance was in his name, BIL is still the owner of the car since no title change, basically FREE USE of the car as there was no rental or lease payment every month, BIL gets the check.

 

[marcyleecorgan]

Dd19 totaled the car that DH had been letting her use. We got 1800 for a seven yr old car. She actually thought she was entitled to the money, despite us paying her insurance. She was paying for things like tires and oil changes. I had to point out to her that we'd be using the money for our increased insurance premiums.

This was the 1st parallel example I thought of, too... because your DH and yourself are kind of like the teenage driver/s in the scenario - someone else holds title to the car, you're just using it. Even if you pay for repairs and insurance, it's still the titleholder's car legally. Your BIL could have even snuck onto the property one day, borrowed the car and drove it into a LAKE if he had wanted to!

All reasons why one is supposed to legally own, register, and insure your OWN vehicle that you are driving. If it wouldn't pass the safety inspection, then WHY would you want to take it on the roads and endanger others? Besides, rust alone is not going to fail the inspection - only if the bodywork underneath is compromised to begin with. And that's an issue about being not safe enough on the road to subject other innocent people to! No mention of the other party whom your DH has also seriously impacted with an auto accident... I'm sure they didn't want to deal with this either...

 

[CdnCarrie]

Ok. But what about my comments was incorrect so that I may understand better.

~Do you have permissive use vs regular, habitual use? That part of my comment was related to someone saying lending your car one time to so and so was the same as lending your car for 3 years in terms of an accident.

~Do you have requirements/mandates at the 'provential' level that if one is a registered owner then one must pay for insurance and repairs? That part of my comment was that it is possible for one to be an owner of a vehicle as far as on the title (registered owner) and yet it not be the responsibility of the registered owner to pay for insurance and repairs (i.e. me being 17 and unable to be on the title on my own until I was 18 however it was me driving the vehicle each day and it was me paying for maintainence and repairs).

I take it permissive use and habitual use are insurance terms in private insurance?
Here it doesn't matter who drives the car.

My husband's car is registered under my name yet I drive it once a year if that. Our government insurance doesn't know or care who drives it. I think under private policy that may be different?

Not sure what "provential"is? Registered owner is the one who would be paying the insurance. Unless as the OP did they just went in and paid for it on behalf of the BIL. Never heard of anyone doing that before but OP did it. I don't think you can be a registered owner of a car (not sure that's a thing here....) and not have insurance. We don't have titles to cars that's I'm aware of. Have never seen one in 30 years of driving. Never had to show proof of ownership when getting the insurance.

I think what you need to understand about our government run car insurance is that its much more simplistic than you are use to dealing with in private insurance.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Then you missed the multiple times where I said he gave us the car as a wedding gift. In the eyes of the law, yes, it’s his car because his name is on the insurance. Basic decency says it’s ours because he, you know, said he gave it to us.

Decency says you do not use loopholes to keep driving a car you know is not safe enough to be legally on the road.

OP, I know you said you've bowed out, but often people DO keep reading---if so, I have to agree with your BiL. Though, quite honestly,. that all of you played these legal games and kept a dangerous car on the road speaks poorly of the whole group, and either of you could have a semi legit claim to the money, to the extent that it is legit at all under the circumstances

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Not sure what "provential"is? Registered owner is the one who would be paying the insurance. Unless as the OP did they just went in and paid for it on behalf of the BIL. Never heard of anyone doing that before but OP did it. I don't think you can be a registered owner of a car (not sure that's a thing here....) and not have insurance. We don't have titles to cars that's I'm aware of. Have never seen one in 30 years of driving. Never had to show proof of ownership when getting the insurance.

The provential part is because of the following quote.

I wanted to make clear that this program is unique to the province and not all provinces are as socialist as we are here.

I meant it in a way does Manitoba, the province, require, etc

OP mentioned: "The car is registered to bil because it wouldn’t pass a safety inspection to have the title transferred. So, when the cheque is written it will go to him. That’s his reasoning for keeping the money, legally it’s his car." So now I'm confused as you said you don't have titles on cars that you are aware of but the OP said the vehicle wouldn't pass safety inspect to have the title transferred.

take it permissive use and habitual use are insurance terms in private insurance?
Here it doesn't matter who drives the car.

Correct. And your second statement is what clarifying point I was looking for.

I think what you need to understand about our government run car insurance is that its much more simplistic than you are use to dealing with in private insurance.

So in other words this entire thread should have been put on the Canadian Trip Planning & Community Board (I know it's mostly Disney trip planning but it did list Community Board) OR the title read Only Canadians respond in order to ensure Americans do not comment on it.

Clearly, and I don't mean this with ill intent, having many U.S. posters on here we are unable to fully understand and thus provide an informed opinion on the matter since insurance was brought up. This is very evident given your attempt to clarify, the OPs intent to clarify, and other poster's attempts to even understand.

If the question was "a vehicle, still titled under my brother-in-law because the vehicle would be unable to pass inspections in order to be transferred to my husband and I, and given by my brother-in-law is now beyond repair due to an accident should my brother-in-law give me the money he will get out of it because we paid for the incidentals (insurance, repairs, maintainence, gas, etc) for the 3 years that we have been driving on it?" The conversation may have been a tad different (though who knows with how tangents go)

In reality the OPs issue lies nothing with insurance or the rules regarding Manitoba's insurance, etc but rather an ethical question of who should get the money or not based on feeling as if the money is owed to them--IMO it's much more of an individual/family situation than anything since the OP already knows the check will be made out to the brother-in-law and thus any money the OP would get would have to be at the willingness of the brother-in-law. That's the point of the OP's post not all the other frills. However, other things did get brought up and people responded.

 

[DLgal]

The funniest part about this whole thread is the belief that this 20 year old rusted out car is worth $1000.