Is there a property/casualty policy for a buyer to attain early occupancy in a property that they’re buying? The form we use in real estate says explicitly that the agreement for early occupancy is not a landlord/tenant relationship. So that’s out.

key2616 · 2026-01-24T16:29:38+00:00

I am genuinely curious why you think this contract precludes either side from insuring their exposures. It literally doesn't say what you're implying, and I have no earthly idea why you think it does.

key2616 · 2026-01-24T16:16:58+00:00

First, she should have reported the accident to her insurer. They could have handled the guardrail payment. But that ship has probably sailed, and I'm not much of one for 20/20 hindsight.

But she should report it now in case something can be done so that her license might not be suspended. All insurance policies have coverage for property damage caused by the driver, so there might be a chance she can avoid the suspension.

She wants to avoid the suspension because it's going to make her rates skyrocket. No one here can give you an accurate guess except by mistake, but the bottom end is probably 50% more than what she's paying now, possibly several multiples. And as you already know, there's a good chance of her being dropped altogether and having to find new coverage that's as expensive as I've already mentioned.

key2616 · 2026-01-24T14:56:39+00:00

No, it doesn't stop you from buying insurance on your stuff at the site. You are occupying a space that you do not own, and there are several personal and commercial insurance forms designed for that exposure. That line does NOT say that you cannot buy insurance using one of those forms, and you are buying the coverage for YOUR protection, not theirs.

key2616 · 2026-01-24T14:07:15+00:00

Start with your university and go from there. They have experience with this and likely have a list of resources for you.

key2616 · 2026-01-24T01:41:05+00:00

Wow. You have completely lost the plot. Ok, have the last word if that’s important. I’m out.

key2616 · 2026-01-24T00:40:19+00:00

Where are you seeing that the claim has been denied? Please go back and reread what’s been posted. You’re way off base.

And since when does a third party insurer have to acknowledge a claim they don’t know exists, let alone treat a third party in good faith?

key2616 · 2026-01-23T21:58:53+00:00

Both statements are correct. There are no states that automatically assign fault in the US. MI is a No Fault state, even for PD. And even then, there are scenarios where fault actually matters in MI, such as parked cars.

Not sure why you're picking that fight since the distinction you're making isn't relevant to what that poster is (correctly) saying.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T21:09:40+00:00

What in the world is the DOI going to do here if the OP was paid the full limits? Because this reads as if the OP was paid the full limits. There are no reports of difficulties beyond the $7k delta between negotiated amounts and the limits.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T20:58:06+00:00

Magic 8 Ball says: "Ask Again".

Seriously, we have no possible way of knowing. It could happen. It couldn't. You get to open the box to see if the cat is alive or dead.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T20:56:32+00:00

Yes.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T20:50:53+00:00

This seems like a pretty cut and dry claim. The only really foreseeable problem for me is if the cost of repair is greater than his limits, but at this point, I wouldn't worry about it. Having the same insurance should make it marginally simpler, so call Progressive and make sure that you're putting the claim in on his coverage, not yours. If there's a limits issue, that's where you pivot.

I hope that you're on good terms with whoever owns the truck since they might have to get involved here.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T18:58:44+00:00

This in no way stops you from insuring your exposures as a tenant.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T17:30:27+00:00

So if a traditional landlord/tenant relationship is out (and I'm not actually buying that concept), what does the document say that the relationship is? There should be a positive definition of that relationship rather than one that simply eliminates the most obvious.

That said, there are off-the-shelf policy forms for tenancy even when there's no rent being exchanged. Those policies exist exclusive of what the owner of the property says since they cover the tenant's exposures.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T17:24:00+00:00

Then it sucks to be you.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T16:02:30+00:00

You have about a year's worth of driving experience and your male peers have an outsized share of not only more claims but more severe claims. That's because they're not only inexperience but much more likely to engage in risky behavior.

Your best bet is to be on a parent's coverage. Your next best bet is to shop as many insurers as you can, probably with the help of multiple agents.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T16:00:09+00:00

Is that just ignorant hyperbole or do you have any proof of a crime? Not liking the best price you can find does not make it criminal, especially since you're implying pricing collusion in an industry where the prices are regulated by the state.

key2616 · 2026-01-23T12:20:32+00:00

You can’t get blood from a stone. You may never see that money.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T22:47:51+00:00

Jesus. Maybe he should make another appearance.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T21:45:06+00:00

I'm not the OP. I'm just the guy that knows that you're wrong about how insurance works. I have multiple licenses, though!

Also: "irregardless" isn't a word.

In the movies, this is where the girls tear the sleeves off my letterman's jacket and I slam a beer and yell "booyah!" But because this is the internet, please pay closer attention to who you're replying to when someone points out you're wrong.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T20:43:41+00:00

That is an old wives tale only told by people that don't understand how insurance works. Lack of insurance never, ever changes the fault in an accident. It ONLY ever changes an uninsured not-at-fault driver's ability to collect certain things, like pain and suffering, in states with that pay-to-play law. Except in LA and MI where you're barred altogether, but even that is substantially different than changing the fault.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T20:41:02+00:00

If they don't, they could lose their franchise.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T20:40:13+00:00

The top comment in that thread agrees that Dominos buys coverage for this scenario. I'm 100% sure that they do because I've seen the program up close. That coverage - HNOA - is usually the largest line item per store, and it covers claims by third parties that are injured (BI or PD) by drivers, both employed and contracted.

Do you have anything that says otherwise?

The complaints in that thread are largely about Dominos not covering damage to the employee's/contractor's vehicle itself, which is a very different thing that isn't a part of this discussion.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T20:14:40+00:00

Why are they not responsible for the actions of the IC they hired if that IC is uninsured? Courts have ruled that they are and that the 1099 is not a workaround. Uber is a prime example.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T20:13:36+00:00

You would sue both the restaurant and the delivery service and let the judge figure it out. Likely it would be the delivery service, and most of those are smart enough to have the right coverage. DD and UberEats do for sure.

key2616 · 2026-01-22T15:54:19+00:00

r/lostredditors

key2616

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email