uninsured moterist rant

Lynnmor wrote:
The idea of putting the liability portion of insurance on the vehicle policy is crazy in my opinion. If someone has three cars, why should he pay three times as much when he can only drive one at a time? If the liability insurance were on the drivers license, then it could be pulled in the event of no insurance or money owed. In the case being discussed, the flunky would lose his license till the thing is settled, and if he were to drive without a license it would be jail time.

Liability insurance is actually covering both the vehicle and the insured, in most cases. Primary coverage follows the vehicle--in other words, any authorized driver of the vehicle (anyone with permission or presumed permission to drive it, assuming they aren't specifically excluded by the policy) is covered first by the vehicle's policy. However, the person with the coverage also has secondary coverage for any vehicle they drive, should there for instance be no insurance on the vehicle--it's a rental and insurance overage was declined, perhaps--or should the liability exceed the vehicle's insurance limits.

Insurance companies do have multiple vehicle discounts partly because they aren't likely to be driven simultaneously.