Absolutely! A legal guardian is bound by court order to oversee the actions and welfare of the minor that has been relegated to their care. The guardian is directly responsible to the court for any and all pertinent issues relating to the minor.
His right arm is insured, but no dollar figure is available.
Rush claims to be self insured.
give up nobody will answer! HAHA
$18,85684950000000
It was covered by Lloyd's of London
the owner of the car with insurance will be responsible
For a new driver to receive insurance in California, you will need to talk to your legal guardian. You cannot be insured yourself, but have to be insured under your guardians name.
Whether the car is insured is not important, the point is who was at fault in causing the accident, it could be the person whose car is insured that is at fault.
Yes, this is because as you stated, the insured driver was at fault. The at fault driver is responsible regardless of the insured status of the person they hit. A good rule of thunb is this,, If they had insurance would I be responsible If the answer is Yes, then the answer is still Yes
in general terms yes as long as her actions were not "intentional"
A risk cannot be insured until it meets certain conditions.It means that the risk should not be created by the insured himself. That is,If the goods insured have been set of fire by the insured,the insurance company will not be responsible
If the driver with the suspended license caused the accident then he/she is responsible.
There are 3 possibilities: You ARE responsbile (or partly responsible) If (1) the un-insured driver is a minor and you are their parent or guardian (2) you are the owner or part-owner of the vehicle they are driving (3) the un-insured driver is on your insurance. Other than those factors, you would not be responsible for them.
The driver has the sole responsibility as they were behind the wheel.
When you buy a car, you have 30 days to get it insured before it becomes illegal, but you are completely financially responsible for any damage done until you are insured.
regardless of whom is insured or not, the 'negligent' or liable party is responsible for the damage or 'to make whole' the injured (this means damage to vehicle as well) party........ i think the insured should pay since it was there fault
Assuming the stolen car was insured, the stolen cars insurance would be responsible. If the stolen car was not insured, the driver, if located would be responsible. If not located then the owner would probably be held responsible. Hopefully the struck vehicle is insured for "uninsured motorist" coverage. Filing the report after the accident would document the theft, but not neccesarily clear the owner of responsibility.