It is, he's just trying to be clever, and in trying to be clever he's simply being wrong. Nitpicking with the wording doesn't change the facts. It says that you have to either have an insurance policy, or provide your own insurance through other means.

 

wow, yall are still arguing the point and trying to twist it around now. I am not nitpicking the wording at all. yall were saying that insurance is required by law. yall were not saying financial responsibility is required by law. If you had been saying that then you would have been correct.
The law lists a few ways to show financial responsibility. Insurance is one of them. There are other ways (read the code to see the details). now you are the ones trying to be cleaver with words and you are refering to these other means of financial responsibility as insurance too.

I think we all know exactly what we ment when we were talking about insurance. everyone here was refering to an insurance policy through a insurance company..... If anyone says otherwise I am sure everyone knows that is BS. LOL

Is it that hard to admit your wrong? most people assume you have to have insurance (as in buy an insurance policy from an insurance company) becuase that is what everone does and when people talk about the subject they do not use the correct terms (this thread is a perfect example)

I did not know this a year or so ago and I probably would have been arguing on the other side myself since it seems like its common knowledge that you are required by law to have insurance.

 

Look what I started .. This has turned out to be a pretty informative thread, though I'm still gonna keep my insurance in the glove compartment

 

so when im pulled over what can I show them if not my insurance?

 

did you read the sections of code that we are talking about? I tells you there.

read section 601.053

 

well jest lettin u guys no i dont have insurance but because i dont drive my car. on the otherhand on my daily driver i do, i will be adding the ta to my policy as well this month. but all i wanted to know was if it was going to be implemented or not, but oh well this was still very informative.

 

^ thats dangerous.. what if your house got broken into and your car got stolen in the process.. or if it caught on fire.. etc etc..

 

If the car is on his property and it's stolen he can claim it under his home owner's insurance

 

I have heard that some people have not had good luck with tryign that. I dont have any info or experience with it so I cant really give you any solid info one way or the other.

I would call your insurance company and get somthgin in writing.

 

I've heard the same thing. It will cover the contents of the house with exception of the car because the car typically has it's own insurance. I guess it may boil down to the cost of the car being included in the value of the home & it's contents. I would for sure check with your home policy provider before relying on this. Granted I heard it from an auto insurance company, I doubt they would just out & lie about it.

 

Ever been stuck where you don't have your current ins. card in your car? I think that its a good idea for cops to be able to look it up for you and not write little tickets for not having that piece of paper in your car.

 

My car was broken into in my driveway and I claimed the losses on my h/o insurance and they fixed me up.. but it is always better to confirm this with your ins co as mentioned above ^^

 

You also need to show insurance to get your vechile state inspected.

 

no you dont

 

LOL, you speak the truth

 

§ 502.153. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Financial Responsibility = LIABILITY INSURANCE...same thing!

 

As for the comment on the home insurance..
It will cover your car if you have it listed on the insurance as a home item..

LOL

but I dont think they will let you list that.. LOL