How Do You Know Who is Liable for Damages in an Auto Accident?
Rules for Determining Primary and Excess Liability Insurance Coverage when the Negligent Driver Does Not Own the Vehicle
If you have been in a car accident or know of someone who has been after borrowing a friend or family member’s car, you might want to know who is liable for the car crash. Is it the vehicle owner or the person who borrowed and drove it?
Answering this question is crucial because it determines what insurance policies may pay for losses.
Indeed, every accident victim would receive fair compensation for their injuries in an ideal world. But unfortunately, available insurance policy limits are critical for a successful car accident claim. And the amount of insurance coverage available often dictates how much a plaintiff can recover (collect) in personal injury litigation and tort claims.
Therefore, this article’s purpose is to discuss what policies of automobile liability insurance may cover the loss when someone other than the vehicle’s owner causes the accident while driving. The goal is to find all available policies to maximize your recovery and potential personal injury settlement.
However, keep in mind that the article focuses only on third-party insurance policies and does not cover first-party insurance that may pay for losses, such as uninsured or underinsured motorists insurance. Often you can receive payment for damages under these policies after exhausting available liability coverage.
Please keep reading to learn more.
And if you have questions about your insurance claim or a potential lawsuit, contact us for a free consultation. See why other attorneys and past clients have voted us one of Virginia’s best car accident lawyers.
Personal Civil Liability for a Car Wreck – Is it the Driver or the Vehicle Owner?
Usually, the person driving at the time of the accident is personally liable if their negligence caused loss – either to the vehicle they were operating or to someone else’s property or body. Therefore, the vehicle owner is not financially responsible if they are not driving in most cases.
However, there are exceptions. And insurance coverage attaches to the vehicle and its operator. Therefore, the car owner’s insurance company will provide liability coverage for the person driving the car if the owner permits that person to use it. I explain this in greater depth later in the article.
What Insurance Coverage is Available When a Non-Owner Causes a Car Crash?
Insurance coverage issues are straightforward if the vehicle’s owner drives the car and causes the wreck. In that case, the owner’s insurance provides primary coverage to those injured.
However, when somebody besides the car owner was at the wheel when the accident occurred, liability insurance issues can become more complicated.
Insurance Policies Covering the Vehicles Involved in the Crash Provide Primary Liability Coverage if the Policy Covers the Defendant Driver
The standard automobile insurance policy states the insurer will pay damages for bodily injury (harm, sickness, illness, disease, etc.) or property damage the insured becomes legally responsible for arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of any covered auto.
Typically, “covered auto” means any vehicle described in the insurance policy or any trailer you own. But it may also refer to a newly acquired car, a replacement vehicle, or a car you do not own but are using because your covered auto is not available or under repair (temporary substitute).
Further, auto liability insurance policies cover more than the named insured. They also cover:
- The named insured’s spouse if they live in the insured’s residence
- Family members living with the named insured
- Non-resident relatives listed on the insurance policy
- Permissive users – people who use the covered auto with the named insured’s permission
Therefore, if the car owner allows their friend or relative to drive their automobile, and that person causes a motor vehicle crash that injures somebody else, the car owner’s insurance provides primary coverage for the injured person’s damages.
What if the Defendant Driver Did Not Have Permission to Use the Covered Auto?
A person using a vehicle without the named insured’s permission does not have coverage under the insured’s liability policy.
Secondary (Excess) Coverage Comes from the Non-Owner Driver’s Liability Policy
The non-owner driver’s insurance company is not off the hook for damages just because the vehicle owner’s insurer provides primary coverage. Instead, the driver’s liability insurance provides excess coverage.
After determining what insurance carrier insures the car driven by the defendant, the analysis turns to the defendant driver’s insurance policies for excess coverage.
For example:
- The car owner has $100,000 in bodily injury liability insurance.
- The non-driver owner has $75,000 in auto liability insurance.
- The injured person suffers $175,000 in damages.
- After the vehicle owner’s $100,000 policy is exhausted, the driver’s liability insurance coverage kicks in to cover the remaining $75,000 in damages.
More Liability Coverage May be Available from the Defendant Driver’s Family Members
Suppose the non-owner driver lives at home with family members. Then you might be able to find excess coverage from one of their insurance policies.
For example:
- Lisa has insurance with State Farm.
- Lisa and John are friends.
- Lisa permits John to use her vehicle.
- John causes a crash that injures Thomas.
- John lives with his parents, who have a separate auto liability policy with Geico.
- Thomas might be able to recover damages from the Geico policy.
When Can a Vehicle Owner be Held Personally Liable for Injuries Even Though They Did Not Directly Cause Harm?
Earlier I mentioned there are exceptions to the general rule that a vehicle owner cannot be held personally liable for an accident involving their car if they were not driving it.
Now we will look at the doctrine of negligent entrustment. This legal concept extends personally liable in some situations.
Understanding the Doctrine of Negligent Entrustment
Virginia’s negligent entrustment doctrine extends liability against third parties who allow a person to drive their vehicle despite knowing that person has an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm due to youth, inexperience, mental or physical impairment, or something else.
To prove negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence:
- The third party permitted the driver to use the vehicle – expressly or implicitly through a pattern of conduct.
- The third party knew or should have known the driver was unfit.
- The unfitness resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.
The driver’s unfitness may consist of:
- Inexperience driving a vehicle or driving a car similar to the one involved in the crash
- Having a suspended or restricted license
- Not having a license
- Driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs
- Vision problems
- Mental impairment or physical defect that makes it difficult to operate the vehicle
- A history of reckless driving (multiple traffic citations or speeding tickets)
Does the Negligent Entrustment Doctrine Apply to Parents Whose Child Causes a Car Crash?
Yes – but only in specific situations.
First, a parent is liable for a child’s negligence if the plaintiff proves the elements of a negligent entrustment claim.
Second, Virginia Code Section 8.01-64 states that a vehicle owner that permits a minor under sixteen years of age to operate their car can be held liable for the minor’s negligence and resulting damages.
Negligent Maintenance
A plaintiff may also hold a vehicle owner personally liable for damages if the owner was negligent in maintaining the car and a mechanical failure causes the crash.
Further, you may hold the owner liable under the doctrine of negligent maintenance if they failed to act after receiving notice of a vehicle defect or recall.
Employer’s Vicarious Liability
In some situations, an innocent person can be held liable for the injuries caused by another even when there is no question they are not at fault. This is called vicarious liability.
There are different policy reasons for vicarious liability. However, the most significant one is the law’s desire to compensate injury victims fairly and allow them to collect damages.
The general rule is that an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees when its employees are within the course and scope of employment. Indeed, a Virginia court has stated:
The test of the liability of the master [employer] for the tortious act of the servant [employee], is not whether the tortious act itself is a transaction within the ordinary course of the business of the master, or within the scope of the servant’s authority, but whether the service itself, in which the tortious act was done, was within the ordinary course of such business or within the scope of such authority.
Further, it often makes no difference if the employee acted negligently or intentionally. An injured person can still seek damages from the employer under the vicarious liability doctrine.
For example, a plaintiff may hold an employer vicariously liable for a tractor-trailer accident when the truck driver’s negligence causes the crash.
Get Help with Your Car Accident Case and Related Liability Insurance Issues
Understanding all potential sources of insurance coverage for auto injury cases is vital to maximizing your recovery. Often multiple liability policies must cover the loss when a non-driver owner causes a crash and personal injuries.
Then, once you determine what insurance is available, you must fight the carrier to get the money you owe. All while you are trying to recover from a terrifying experience.
You can do it all by yourself.
Or you can contact a top-rated personal injury lawyer to help you recover complete compensation. And let us find all available legal remedies for you.
Contact us today to start building your car accident claim.
- Will the Dollar Tree Store Closures Affect My Workers’ Compensation? - March 14, 2024
- Workplace Injuries in 2022: BLS Releases Statistics - December 15, 2023
- SSA Proposes a Rule Change to Work History Evaluation - November 1, 2023
