California: Providing Proof of Financial Responsibility in Court

[ameliac17]

My question involves insurance law for the state of: California.

I pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to provide proof of insurance (16028 C) on a car (A) that wasn't mine and is now wrecked.

I asked for a continuance to provide proof of insurance to have my fine lowered.

The car that I was driving that did not have insurance is now wrecked; I cannot purchase insurance for that car and therefore cannot use that as proof of financial responsibility. The car I crashed was a car I borrowed. "My" car (B) does have insurance and did have insurance the whole time I was driving it (including the time in which I wrecked car A), BUT Only my parents were insured.

So...

Does this mean I can't use the insurance on car B as proof of financial responsibility. Do I then have to get insurance on myself to get proof of financial responsiblity? And if I have to buy insurance for myself, will I have to pay more because of the above mentioned charges?

Thanks.

[M'sta Mikey]

You need to provide proof of insurance on Vehicle A, not insurance on yourself (not sure what you mean by that).

If Vehicle A was not insured, your insurance policy is not going to cover it nor, as you found out, will you be able to insure it. When you reappear in court, you will be order to pay the original fine.

You have to remember one thing, before you operate ANY vehicle you need to know if that vehicle is properely insured & registered, has valid tags and is in good operating condition.

[ameliac17]

I say that because a police officer said i can get insurance on myself no matter what car I drive. It's called a non owner policy I think.

Here's a link:

http://www.insurance4usa.com/nonowner-car-insurance.cfm

But you answered my question anyways...I will call the court to make sure I can buy non owner auto insurance.

[jk]

you need to provide proof of insurance for the time of the accident. If there was no insurance on the vehicle at the time of the accident, all the new policies in the world are not going to change that. You cannot purchase retroactive coverage.

You have no defense to the charge.

btw: the non-owners policy does not meet the requirements for insurance required by the state. It is merely a policy to provide additional coverage for your liabilities. Each vehicle registered in California MUST have a policy specifically for that vehicle.

[ameliac17]

I already pleaded guilty. I am not looking for the charges to be dismissed. I was told by the bailiff I could have my fine lowered if I got insurance after I committed the traffic violation.