Is it legal to let sister-in-law drive my vehicle in another state and have her on my insurance? This is about my wife's sister who is a single parent mom and lives in a different state. Not sure if it matters but I live in Massachusetts and she lives in Georgia. Because of her life situation she has not been able to afford car payments and I for this reason have allowed her to use one of the two cars that are in my name. In this case this means I make the monthly payments on these cars and I also pay for the car insurance for both of them. Both of my cars are insured from the same company. On the insurance, she is listed as a driver for the car that she has with her in Georgia, and that car is also listed as garaged in Georgia. Can the car insurance company legally deny insuring the vehicle she is driving in this kind of case? Update: The reason for my question is that the car was in an accident where parts of the body (side front bumper, and side rear panel) got scratched. This happened when the car was parked outside a shopping center (someone tried to squeeze into a parking space next to it), meaning that she was not driving the car, or even inside it, at the time. A police report was made about this incident but it is not yet known if the driver of that other car had insurance, as they had left the scene after bumping into this car (some passerby got the tag# of that other car and gave it to my sister-in-law). When we asked the insurance company about this, we eventually received the reply that the insurance company "is not going to insure the [car] that is garaged in Georgia, they are going to issue legal notice to cancel the insurance since [my sister-in-law's] residence is there." The insurance policy has listed her as the driver on the car garaged in Georgia for 3 years. So if there was an issue with this setup, I would have thought that we had been informed about it. I am not particularly concerned about whether they are willing to cover the damage, as it is not major and the insurance in any case has a $500 deductible. The concern and question I have is about the "legal notice" from the insurance company, because that implies that this setup has been somehow illegal.
The insurer can absolutely deny paying any claims if they discover that you misrepresented something in obtaining your policy, or you failed to notify them of relevant changes in accordance with the policy's terms. In fact, even changing the "garage" location within a state can affect your premium. You should call your insurer and provide them an honest and complete description of the regular use of the car. It is up to their underwriters whether they will continue to provide insurance for that use, and whether they will change your premium accordingly. Update regarding the question update: The insurer could not legally deny a claim for any insured damage prior to notice of cancellation, so long as there was no misrepresentation and you had paid your premiums. As to when an insurer can legally cancel a policy: This is first a contractual question, and their policy should include terms and conditions that address this. (E.g., they might reserve the right in the policy to cancel it for any reason at any time, in which case it's almost certainly legal.) Note that all policy terms must be approved by a state's insurance commission. I happen to remember that Massachusetts has some very unusual terms and restrictions for car insurance, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Massachusetts entity discovered that their policy on the out-of-state car was non-compliant and they had to cancel it. The great thing about the tight regulation of auto insurance is that if a claim on a policy is denied, or if a policy is improperly cancelled, then you can file a complaint with the state regulator, and those tend to get resolved quickly and in the insured's favor. Therefore, you should simply review your policy terms and the cancellation notice. If anything seems out-of-order you can call both the insurer and your state regulator.
Some kinds of companies (e.g. freight shipping companies and banks) often do have those policies. The real issue is not whether those policies are permitted, but what the consequences are for breaking them. The fact that a company forbids its employees from exercising a legal right doesn't mean that the employee ceases to have that legal right. It simply means that if the employee exercises that legal right, then the employee has breached the contract and may suffer the consequences for breaching that contract. Violations of those policies are grounds for termination from employment, and this would probably not be void as a matter of public policy. For an employee at will this is really pretty meaningless, although it could conceivably affect unemployment benefit eligibility. But, for a unionized or civil service employee who can only be fired for cause, this is a big deal. But, in theory, a company policy does not impact the tort liability or the criminal liability of the individual engaging in legally privileged self-defense to anyone. This is because two people can't contractually change their legal duties to third parties with whom they are not in privity (i.e. with whom they do not have a contractual relationship). And two people also can't contractually change the terms of a country's penal laws. The policy may be a defense of the company from vicarious liability for the employee's use of force in violation of the policy that gives rise to civil liability for the employee because the grounds for authorizing self-defense were not present. If the employee using force did so wrongfully and was sued for negligence rather than battery, the existence of the company policy might also go to the issue of whether the employee was acting negligently since a reasonable person in the employee's shoes might have been less likely to wrongfully use force in purported self-defense if there was such a policy than if there was not such a policy (and instead there might arguably have been a legal fiduciary duty as an agent to protect the property and workers of the principal in the absence of the policy).
It is almost certainly legal for the sitter to keep the money. She was ready to provide the service, and it is not her fault she couldn't (and she may have turned down other opportunities because she had this one). I think your fiance's claim would be against the firm providing the security service (they are the ones that frustrated the contract). I foresee the following problems: What are her losses? She was prepared to pay $315 (which she has paid), and the dog has been looked after. Where is the loss? (She may be able to argue that it was worth $315 to her, not to have to owe her mother a favour. I don't know if that will fly.) The contract with the security firm almost certainly waives liability for this sort of thing. She would have to convince the court that the contract terms were unreasonable/unconscionable (or whatever the term is in the local jurisdiction). There are two obvious options here: a) see if there is legal cover on her household insurance (or her pet insurance); b) forget it (it's only $175 all told).
Whoever signed the loan owes the money to the bank for the truck. So, in this case it is probably both your husband and his ex girlfriend. Whoever is listed on the title of the vehicle as the registered owner has the full exclusive use of the vehicle. That is probably your husband. Any person who co-signed for a loan owns nothing and has rights to nothing. Co-signing a loan just means that the signer agrees to pay off the loan. In this case the girlfriend does not, nor has ever owned the vehicle. If payments are not made on the vehicle, the owner of the loan (probably a bank) will repossess the vehicle and take ownership of it. At that point they will become the registered owner. Your main options are: Refinance the car. You take your own loan and buy out your husband and his girlfriend. Both of them and the bank would have to agree to this. You would become the registered owner of the car. Make a set-off agreement. In this case, you offer your husband a deal: you will make the payments on the car, if you get the use of the car and a percentage of the sale price in the event the car is sold. Try to get a judge to award you the car in the divorce. In this scenario, the judge would order that you become the registered owner of the car, but the girlfriend and your husband would still be responsible for paying the loan. The risk here is that both will default on the loan and the car will get repossessed.
Sounds a lot like a bad-luck, move-on situation. I can't imagine any reason why the complex would have any duty to watch your bike for you or otherwise ensure that no one steals it. The fact that you bought it knowing that the bike shed had not yet been built and that the security gates were broken would probably count against you. If you know who stole your bike, you'd have a much better case against them, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. If you're looking for a typical contingency-fee arrangement, in which the attorney takes a fee from your winnings, I'd imagine you're going to be especially out of luck, based on two hard facts: The total damages you can collect is probably going to be equal to the price of your bicycle: £400. The average hourly rate at national firms for the most junior lawyer is already more than £200. If you sat down with such a lawyer, explained your situation, discussed your options, and then tasked the lawyer to write a threatening letter to the apartment complex, you'd already have incurred more fees than the value of the bicycle. Probably no attorney is interested in that arrangement -- especially since it's highly unlikely the complex would pay. So unless you're actually willing to pay hourly rates, I can't imagine any lawyer taking this case. Even if you were, no one may take it just because lawyers don't like taking cases that they're going to lose.
I can't speak directly to South African law. I am an American (but not a lawyer). Much of the relevant American law is derived from English common law, and I will assume for the purposes of this answer that this is true for South African law as well. In this example, you lent a car to a friend, and from the sound of it, primarily for the friend's benefit. (If it had been an "exchange of favors," and s/he let you use a beach house in return, a different "standard of care" would apply.) Because of this fact, your friend owes you a high standard of care for your car. Even "ordinary" wear and tear would be too much. Basically, your friend was responsible for the car's "upkeep," and was supposed to return it to you in as nearly the "original" condition as possible. Not having done so, s/he could be liable to you for getting you a "new" car of the same make, or at least a car that was no older, and had no more miles that yours had, when you lent it.
No Auto insurance covers loss or damage to the vehicle - the vehicle is neither lost nor damaged. The risk you describe is called title insurance and is normally bought for real estate.
Damaging someone else's property is not protected free speech in the US. Nor is using someone else's property without permission and against the owner's wishes. Scenario 3 would surely be vandalism or &quot;Malicious Mischief&quot; or some similar offense, even if the paint can be fairly easily removed. The same would be petty surely true of scenario 2, as it would take at least some effort to remove the sticker, and it could be a safety hazard until it is removed (obstructed vision). Scenario 1 would probably not be even a minor crime, unless perhaps the person trespassed to attach the string. But the person has no right to insist that the car's owner not remove the sign. I am assuming that the car is owned by someone else, and the the person placing the sign, sticker or paint acted without permission from the owner or any authorized person.