It appears you must be in Louisiana from your reference to the "no pay no play" law. This law does not specifically note what claims can or cannot be made if an excluded driver is operating the car that was not at fault so court decisions have been making the call. You will likely need legal advice.

The “no pay, no play” law (Louisiana Revised Statute 32:866) in part bars a portion of an owner’s recovery “based on any cause or right of action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, for such injury or damages occasioned by an owner or operator of a motor vehicle involved in such accident who fails to own or maintain compulsory motor vehicle liability security.”

From the court decisions we have read the court in LA are mixed with regards to if a car owner who has car insurance on their vehicle but allowed an excluded driver to use their vehicle to make a claim for their property damage against the at-fault party's Property Damage Liability coverage. In some cases we have read it has been allowed because the court found that although the driver was uninsured technically at the time of the accident the car itself was insured by the owner and thus follows the law of having minimum state coverage on it that the "no pay no play" law cites. Bodily Injury claims for the excluded driver however were not allowed since they were not covered in anyway.

One case in 2003 (referred to by us as the Bryant case) had the court note that there is a split among various courts of appeal regarding whether the “no pay, no play” law applies to bar an insured owner from recovering his or her own damages when an excluded driver is operating the vehicle at the time of the accident.

In this case the fact that plaintiff specifically excluded her son from coverage under her policy did not alter her compliance with the compulsory motor vehicle liability security law the court found. Therefore, the court of appeal concluded, because plaintiff had an automobile insurance policy on the vehicle at the time of the accident, she is entitled to recover property damages without any deduction under the “no pay, no play” law. Bryant thus could recover property damage of car.

But in 2004 the Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed various no pay no play decisions made by lower court and after thoroughly considering the positions of each party, the conflicting decisions of the courts of appeal, the relevant statutory provisions, and the underlying public policies of our state, they concluded that La. R.S. 32:866 applies to partially bar the recoveries of plaintiffs in cases where the excluded drivers were operating plaintiffs’ vehicles with their permission.

This court decided the “no pay, no play” law applied to partially bar the named insured’s own recovery in light of the fact that the named insured thwarted the law by receiving a reduced premium and then permitting his or her car to be operated by an excluded drive.

For this reason the Supreme Court of LA decided that when an insurance policy affords no coverage for an excluded driver’s operation of the named insured’s vehicle, La. R.S. 32:866 applies to bar a specified portion of the named insured’s recovery of bodily injury and/or property damages when the excluded driver is involved in an accident while driving the named insured’s vehicle with the permission of the named insured. This decision was made to uphold the legislative policy to discourage vehicles without proper security from operating on our public highways, roads and streets, and to benefit the insured citizens and insurers of the state they said.

So while it appears lower courts did find in some cases that the car owner could make a claim for their property damages if their excluded driver was not at fault in an accident that the Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed these decisions and found that the excluded person was not insured and the car owner allowing an excluded driver to operate their vehicle and then be able to make claims would be thwarting the "no pay, no play" law so they could not make claims, not even for their property damage.

Since the Louisiana law itself does not address excluded drivers it is up to the courts to determine what claims are allowed or denied in this matter. This 2004 decision is the last one we are aware of on the situation however court cases take place everyday so you can contact a lawyer in Louisiana that is an expert in this field, we are not and cannot give legal advice on it.

A lawyer as well as your own insurance agent should be able to advise you on what your rights are in this situation. As you know your daughter was excluded and thus would not be extended any of your auto insurance coverages and would be taking a risk of being in an accident and the "no pay, no play" law may be applied. If you were sick and unable to drive but wanted to allow your daughter to drive you around or drive your car to take care of errands for you than you needed to contact your insurance company to take away the exclusion and place her on the policy as a driver.

It may sound unfair that someone can hit your car and not have to pay but by allowing your excluded daughter to drive you basically were allowing an uninsured car out on the roadway since the car was not insured for her to operate it. If she had been at fault in the accident than both you and her would be held liable for the damages she caused since your car did not have your full coverage on it when she drove the car, it had no coverages extended to her as a driver.