Anonymous wrote:MB here. Our nanny is on our insurance. Our insurance has explained that her insurance would pay first, and then our insurance would cover any additional. So, we'd both probably end up with higher rates. But, the hit-and-run would really, really bother me. I think you should pursue it.
Anonymous wrote:Sure, Jan.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter at all whos car it was. This isn't like someone driving a Verizon truck. The nanny does not represent the MB. Unfortunately you will have to sue the nanny and she surely won't have any money.
Insurance pays, not the person. Nanny was driving MB's car, so if Nanny was included in MB's insurance and didn't have her own insurance, only MB's insurance gets hit, and rates go up. If Nanny is on MB's insurance and has her own, her insurance takes the first hit, but both policies will go up. If she wasn't on MB's insurance, that's when it gets dicey, especially if she doesn't have a vehicle of her own, so doesn't have her own insurance.
You don't ensure a car for things the car does. Nanny is at fault and should pay the medical bills, if she has insurance to cover that so be it. But MB having insurance on her car means it will be repaired, but just because she has insurance doesn't mean that they will pay the medical bills of some other person that an uninsured driver hit.
The way OP wrote things was that she wanted to sue MB ( presumably because she has more money) simple because she owned the car.
You could not be more mistaken. The nanny's employer will absolutely be liable since the nanny was driving on the employer's business when the accident occurred, whether or not the nanny was driving their car or hers. Unless the nanny has a business rider on her insurance which covers her driving while being a nanny, her insurance will not cover the accident. If the employer's insurance does not list the nanny as a insured driver and the nanny as an employee, their insurance will not cover the accident either. Insurance will only cover what is explicitly covered in the policy and then only up to the limits of the policy. Any judgement above those limits or lack of coverage will make both the nanny and the employer liable for the remainder. Look up "vicarious liability".
Anonymous wrote:Respondeat superior, people. It matters, employers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter at all whos car it was. This isn't like someone driving a Verizon truck. The nanny does not represent the MB. Unfortunately you will have to sue the nanny and she surely won't have any money.
Insurance pays, not the person. Nanny was driving MB's car, so if Nanny was included in MB's insurance and didn't have her own insurance, only MB's insurance gets hit, and rates go up. If Nanny is on MB's insurance and has her own, her insurance takes the first hit, but both policies will go up. If she wasn't on MB's insurance, that's when it gets dicey, especially if she doesn't have a vehicle of her own, so doesn't have her own insurance.
You don't ensure a car for things the car does. Nanny is at fault and should pay the medical bills, if she has insurance to cover that so be it. But MB having insurance on her car means it will be repaired, but just because she has insurance doesn't mean that they will pay the medical bills of some other person that an uninsured driver hit.
The way OP wrote things was that she wanted to sue MB ( presumably because she has more money) simple because she owned the car.