What happens if:

[rah]

In most states, you're insuring your vehicle, so unless there is a specific exclusion, anyone driving your car would be covered. (if you have given your permission)

[Solomwi]

As always, it varies from state to state, but generally, you won't have any liability except possibly negligent entrustment. They would have to show that you had reason to know your relative was an unsafe driver, but let him drive your car anyway. My guess would be that your policy follows you, not your car, and so won't cover the liability here, but that depends on state and policy. Likewise, your relative's policy should cover the liability, but the fact that it was your car may trigger an exclusion or otherwise give them a reason to deny coverage.

Generally speaking, if total liability is higher than the policy limits, the plaintiff winds up settling for policy limits, since most drivers are more or less judgment-proof. If it goes to trial and your relative is found liable, the insurance company will pay up to policy limits and your relative will be on the hook for any excess judgment.

[Dinner]

A relative is driving your car, gets in a multiple car pileup, and is 'at fault'. I am mostly interested in what happens if the total liabilities are higher than the insurance coverage.

JM

Insurance covers a car not a driver. If you end up under insured then both the relative, as the driver, and you, as the owner, can be sued.

[Provost Harrison]

Here (well not here exactly, but in my home country), my policy covers me and not my car...I am entitled to drive any car...but I only get 3rd party cover in that car...

[Solomwi]

Insurance covers a car not a driver. If you end up under insured then both the relative, as the driver, and you, as the owner, can be sued.

What the insurance covers doesn't determine who can be sued. It determines who's covered in the event of a suit. Under a common law negligence regime, JM won't be liable unless he was negligent in letting the relative use his car. Some states may have statutes that change that, though.

Incidentally, the liability portion of my policy specifies that it covers damage caused by an "insured person," and includes drivers, with my permission, of any "covered vehicle" in the definition of insured person. So it follows both me, as it covers damage I may cause in a borrowed vehicle, and my car, as it covers damage by a driver I let use my car.

[MikeH]

In most states, you're insuring your vehicle, so unless there is a specific exclusion, anyone driving your car would be covered. (if you have given your permission)

That seems really odd to me. I can see how they assess the risk of a driver, driving history, age, sex etc. how do you assess that just based on the car?

[SlowwHand]

Is the relative covered by your policy? No, I didn't read anything after the OP. Is or isn't is what matters.

[Dauphin]

That seems really odd to me. I can see how they assess the risk of a driver, driving history, age, sex etc. how do you assess that just based on the car?

I can think of a very easy and rudimentary method - you can tell a person by the car they drive:

Nissan Micra owners have difficulty attaining more than 30 mph on any road. White van man will destroy anything in his way. BMW owners are wankers. Articulated lorry drivers have a lemming-like desire to pull into the middle lane and try to overtake a slower lorry for several miles. Mercedes drivers are old men who indicate to overtake but then take twenty minutes to complete the task. Chelsea tractor drivers don't seem to realise that they can't brake any better than the rest of us. etc...

[germanos]

That seems really odd to me. I can see how they assess the risk of a driver, driving history, age, sex etc. how do you assess that just based on the car?

Are you saying that if you park your car on a slope, forget the handbreak and the car crashes into something your insurance doesn't cover it?

LOL at Dauphin