I can't be the only one out there facing this issue. Daughter #1 is 17 and thinking about getting her learners permit. I just got a renewal from Grundy in the mail. In the paperwork it says no one with less than 9 years driving experience is supposed to be driving the car. I want her to get her license behind the wheel of my T. So what's the work around here? I expect that even if she had her own car Grundy would not cover her - so we're up over the $1,000 mark for one years no coverage insurance again. FYI - Grundy is $100.50 per car for full coverage.
Try Hagerty. I believe their age requirements are less strict.
or put it in the car insurance program of your everyday vehicles
My every day vehicles cost about $400/yr for each car and cover just about nothing. Adding my daughter to them will quadruple those amounts.
From the web:
"The average car insurance for a teen tends to be about $1,200 a year, depending on the circumstances and type of vehicle."
I think it would be cheaper to get a horse and wagon for her.
As I recall you have three daughters?
Well, you will need to start your own insurance company and also make room for a lot more shoes!
In other words, I cant help you?
Maybe it just isn't worth it. After all, teenagers, especially boys are at much higher risk for accidents than older drrivers. Its a fact so you can't fault the insurance companies on that point. The rule is there to protect your daughter but obvioussly the experience rule of that many years is obviously way overkill. Obviously insurance companies have many faults. If it were my daughter, I would do what my parents did with me as a fourteen year old with a Model A. I could do anything I wanted or was stupid enough to do in a neighbors farm field driving a Ford with worn out mechanical brakes,
But I might have misunderstood you . Maybe you are saying that she will just drive it for a supervised test and not as an everyday sort of thing. I might be a pooor judge here because I don't have any kids.
The cell phone, distracted driver danger is increasing to a point where I'm going to trade in my truck for a car with surround air bags, but that is a different issue.
Have you actually called your insurance agent and talked one on one? Your daughter is going to drive something, either way you will pay the price. Either to an insurance company in $$ or in the loss of your daughter's love.
I have my cars insured with State Farm, They cost only about $110.00 per year for each of the T's. My son is on our policy but is not listed as the primary driver. He does have a pick-up truck that he drives daily and is listed as the primary driver. His pick-up costs about 1200.00 per year just for liability. I'm looking forward to him graduating from the University this spring so he can start paying his own bills.
Jack's on the right track. Shop the market.
I, at one point, had my 3 childern on my policy all at once. The cost was astronomical. I had been with the same insurance carrier for over 25 years at that point and just figured they'd give me the best deal. Then there were a couple of bent fenders. I received a notice that my rates would nearly quadruple. So. I did some shopping. It was still very expensive, but it's definetly worth your time to shop the market with your specific information (vehicle inventory, name, lic. number and age of all drivers, etc.).
Good Luck!! There's no easy way out, so just do the best you can. And remember, this will pass. They grow up, leave home, and you'll find yourself wishing they were back, insurance premiums or not.
When my son was 16 about four years ago, I called for a quote to add him to our collector insurance so that he could drive our T's without me in the car. The quote I got back floored me, eight dollars a year and that covers him in seven different cars. They said they look at the car types that he would be driving and his record, I'm sure if it was a muscle car there would be no chance of being insured. We insure through Continental Western.
I don't know about other companies or other states,however, State Farm in Georgia doesn't go up on your other vehicles if the young driver is listed as the primary driver of his or her own vehicle. If it is the same in your area, get her a beater for a daily driver. Let her pay the liability only on the beater, then put your T on the policy with your other cars and she can drive it. That is what we do with my wife's '67 Mustang and my TT. My son has his own '78 F-100 with liability only that he is the primary driver of. He can drive any of our other vehicles except the Model A which is with JC Taylor. Our insurance did not change one cent when either of my boys got their license.
I used Hal's strategy too, in California. I had an older modern pick-up that wasn't worth much. I used it as the kids primary vehicle with liability insurance only. I think it helped that it was a 6 cylinder with manual trans. Not much for hot-rodding around, so it saved money and I felt a little better knowing they were in a good heavy vehicle that was no good for racing.
Note that, like Hal says, it may be overall less costly to just buy an old clunker than pay high premiums on good cars. You also get the residual benefit of forcing them to learn to keep it going if they want to drive it.
Hal, That is what I was trying to say in my earlier post. You communicated it much better than I did.
If you read the fine print in most insurance policies; If you have a underage licensed driver living in your house you need to declare them. You may claim that they NEVER drive your cars but heaven help you if they do and have a accident and you didn't declare them.
Another point; just having a drivers license for 9 years doesn't ultimately help them if they don't drive. The insurance company will ask who they have been insured with. No experience is no experience.
In regards to Henry's experience, I made it a point to insure my kids with a different company on their own policy on their own beater car. That way my insurance on the expensive vehicles wouldn't be affected by any "bent fenders" they had.
Oh yeah, and lying to insurance companies is fraud. They might be forced to pay out on a claim, but they will come after you.
I switched from Grundy to Hagerty so that my daughters could drive the cars that I restored for them Grungy would not insure them but Hagerty lets them drive at any age as long as they are licensed.
Like Dan, I'm insured with Continental Western as well. When I got my T, I was 21 and they weren't going to insure me. However, I had a clean driving record and after my agent spoke with their underwriter, they decided to make an exception in this case. I made sure to point out that the car only does 40 mph downhill which may have helped my case. As an insurance agent myself, I know in certain cases, the underwriters will make exceptions. Some guidelines are pretty much set in stone, but others may be more flexible and I've learned it never hurts to make your case and to try and get an exception.
Like Les said, lying to insurance companies is considered insurance fraud, not a situation you want to get yourself in. It can be basis for an insurance company to deny a particular claim, cancel your policy without warning, and you can even face criminal charges if it was a big enough lie.
The best thing to do would be to talk to your agent and have them work with the company's underwriters to see if it is possible to make an exception. If not, shop around for a policy that fits your needs. I would recommend checking out Continental Western though...I have no affiliation with them but they seem a little more flexible and reasonable than other companies.
Check with Hagerty. Last I heard they had a much more common sense attitude toward younger drivers. Their only restriction was that the driver had to be part of the same household so they won't insure a younger driver on your policy who is living apart in his own apartment so that seemed like a reasonable request. I once surveyed all of the antique car insurance companies with regard to younger drivers and found that Hagerty was way out in front in terms of "long term" thinking. They see that for their company to have a future in antique car insurance, the antique car hobby has to have a future and that means folks have to develop interest when they are young. Made sense to me then and still does today.
It's a shame that insuring our kids is so expensive. If there's one thing this hobby needs, it's more young people. Traditionally, the up-and-coming generation has been enamored with the latest technology and you generally won't see them heavily involved with historic cars, aircraft, boats, etc. Computerized video games are now their favorite recreation and many of the kids in my neighborhood will grow up without ever having held a stick-ball bat or a frisbee. They're being gypped. Hey, let's face it; we're involved with antique cars and Model-Ts because they're so darn much fun. I wish the insurance companies could be persuaded to bet on our kids so we could more easily get them involved.
I've been through this also having 2 boys who use to take baby naps in the seat of a T and who are now well onto their own with their own families. I'll admit that I took the 'ignorance is bliss' approach while they were growing up.
They both could drive 'stick' by the time they were 8, both had full control of any of the T's by the time they were 12, and once they had their own licenses [on their own insurance] any time they wanted to take a T for a spin, the answer was always 'sure'.
Call me perhaps irresponsible, but thats the way things went. Funny story about the 'household' underwriting practice mentioned above by someone else. Once they had their license and their own 'beaters' and their own insurance, we always disclosed that fact to our own insurance company. They never assessed us at a higher premium! Until...after some 12 years of this practice of not 'seeing' the other young drivers, they finally decided to assess this household penalty when the youngest was in his senior year at University...and living in a dorm!
Thought here based on what I read is that there are the foibles of the different companies, the over 25 rule at some, the restricted priveldges at the others...and apparently ALL play the game! All want that 100 buck or under policy per year, and do what they have to in order to keep it that way! [Yeah, I too got dropped by one when I entered something on the disclosure sheet that they didn't like...but immediately found another and knew then what to say and not say on the disclosure sheet]
Point is, as a 'club' why wait and hope that some insurance company can come up with an all encompasing deal for the younger set who is coming up? That will never happen if they don't know. It's a simple impersonal risk analysis for them where premiums always follow experience! They really don't know that the underwriting may only be based on, a 17-25 year old...fully trained in a T operation as it IS different...who may put 10-20 miles on at a time...and maybe just a dozen or so times a year!
A savvy insurance broker would know how to convince them!
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. State Farm is fully aware that we have a 17 year old licensed driver in the house. He is insured with State Farm as well. He has his own vehicle and is listed as the primary driver of it. However, it is an older vehicle with little value and therefore has liability insurance only. On our newer vehicles, as well as our antiques, we have full coverage. State Farm allows him to drive them as long as they are not his primary mode of transportation.
I suppose if we got the minimum liability insurance, in his name, on some wreck and just parked it then allowed him to drive one of the newer vehicles, on a daily basis, that my wife or I are listed as the primary driver on, then we would be guilty of insurance fraud.
But that is not the case. He drives his vehicle the vast majority of the time and only ocassionally uses one of our modern cars or antiques. State farm is aware of that and is OK with it. Nothing underhanded going on.
I think we are on the same page, just saying it different ways.
I was a State Farm insured driver since I was 14 years old.
Then I had a camera stolen from my locked car and filed a police report to back it up. They tried to cancel my policy after 50 years of coverage with no claims.
Later in my motor home the pod on the pull along car blew off in high winds in TX.
They doubled my rates.
IN SHORT, in this day and age there is NO allegience to ANY customer of STATE FARM!!
So I shopped around and beat their rates by a bunch.
AARP/Hartford is pretty cheap for oldsters. Except AARP is liberal as all get out.
I became a member of USAA as a young Air Force second lieutenant in 1964 and have insured my cars with them ever since. I was just reading my USAA Magazine and see that they have opened eligibility for USAA to anyone who has served honorably in the Armed Forces. They have been a great company through the years. We had a major liability claim against us a few years ago and our premium didn't even go up. Their customer service is excellent.
"Except AARP is liberal as all get out."
What does that have to do with AARP/Hartford's ability to serve their customers well?
Seth, I assume that it has to do with the fact that insurance purchased through AARP puts money in AARP's coffers. If someone doesn't want to do that, then he prefers to buy his insurance elsewhere. I quit AARP years ago when I discovered that it wasn't so much a senior citizen advocacy group as a political cheering section. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, if you're up front about it.
I still prefer USAA for car insurance...
You must join this AARP group to get Hartford Insurance.
Forgot your political bent.