Can you insure a car if you do not have a driver’s license?

Car insurance and driver licensing are two separate legal regimes, and the duty to insure attaches to the vehicle’s owner as much as to whoever drives it. California Vehicle Code §16020(a) says it flatly: “All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at all times be able to establish financial responsibility.” But there is one question no official source we checked answers: whether a license is required to buy a policy. Not the NAIC, not the California Department of Insurance, not the Texas Department of Insurance — neither yes nor no.

That combination is the whole subject of this page. The law does impose a duty on the owner of the car; the regulators’ consumer guides are silent on any license requirement for buying coverage. Here is what is actually written, quoted, and exactly where the silence begins. (Verified August 11, 2026.)

Insurance is regulated state by state, not by federal law

There is no federal auto insurance law. The NAIC — the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the association of the states’ insurance regulators — puts it this way on its consumer page: “Most states require that you purchase some kind of insurance coverage to drive legally in the state.” And in its Consumer’s Guide to Auto Insurance: “State law sets the minimum amounts of liability coverage required. These minimums are too low to fully cover you if you cause a serious accident.”

Note the exact words: “most states”, not “all states”. The line “every state requires insurance” circulates widely and is not what the sources say.

New Hampshire is the documented counterexample. There, proof of financial responsibility is not a universal precondition but a conditional, per-person obligation. The state DMV explains it this way: “The Division of Motor Vehicles may require that persons have insurance (SR-22). If you fall under an insurance filing requirement, the Division of Motor Vehicles will notify you of this in writing.” A driver record report prints one of two sentences: “No proof of financial responsibility is required” or “Proof of financial responsibility is required.” The heading of the state statute confirms the trigger — RSA 264:2 is titled “Proof Required Upon Conviction for Motor Vehicle Law Violations.”

Financial responsibility belongs to the owner, not only to the driver

This is the point that changes the question. In California the duty is written about two subjects at once:

“(a) All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence of the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle.” — California Vehicle Code §16020(a)

The state’s insurance regulator repeats it in consumer terms: “You must show financial responsibility for any vehicle that you own, in case of injury to other people or damage to their property. Most people show financial responsibility by buying auto liability insurance.”

Put differently: in California the law speaks to the vehicle’s owner because they are the owner. A car titled in your name carries that duty even if someone else is the one driving it every day. That is California’s wording; other states word the obligation differently, and we did not review all 50.

Named driver exclusion: what it is and where it is prohibited

When one household shares a car and only one person is licensed, this concept shows up. Texas defines it in its Insurance Code:

“‘Named driver exclusion’ means a provision or endorsement of an automobile insurance policy that excludes specified drivers from coverage under the policy.” — Texas Insurance Code §1952.351(2)

What it does in practice, in the regulators’ own words. The California Department of Insurance: “Read your policy before you allow others to drive your car. Some drivers might be excluded from your policy. This means that the policy will not cover accidents when they are driving.” And the Texas Department of Insurance, in its FAQ: “But you could have an exception on your policy that says it won’t cover people who are named as excluded drivers on the policy.” / “If you aren’t sure, ask your agent if you have this ‘named driver exclusion endorsement.’”

Texas also limits how it may be used:

“(a) An insurer may not deliver, issue for delivery, or renew a named driver policy unless the named driver policy is an operator’s policy. (b) An insurer may use a named driver exclusion only if the exclusion specifically names each excluded driver and does not exclude a class of drivers and the named insured accepts the exclusion in writing.” — Texas Insurance Code §1952.353

The same statute defines a “named driver policy” as one “that provides any type of coverage for individuals named on the policy but that does not provide coverage for every individual who has permission to use a covered vehicle and who resides in a named insured’s household” (§1952.351(3)).

Not every state permits the device. These are the three we verified:

StateCan a named driver be excluded?Source
TexasYes, with conditions: it must name each excluded driver, may not exclude a class of drivers, and the named insured must accept it in writingTexas Insurance Code §1952.353
New YorkNo — the regulator says such an endorsement violates its regulationNY Department of Financial Services, OGC Opinion 02-04-20
WisconsinNot by endorsementWisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, guide PI-057

New York’s wording: “No owner’s policy of liability insurance, commercial or otherwise, may exclude as ‘insured’ any person or organization other than those persons or organizations expressly permitted to be excluded under N.Y. Comp. Codes R. and Regs. tit. 11, § 60-1.1(c)(3)”. Wisconsin: “Wisconsin law allows insurers to rate based on all the members in a household including husband, wife, children, or nonrelative, and the law does not allow insurers to exclude drivers by endorsement.”

We verified three states. We did not review the other 47 or the District of Columbia, and we make no claim about them. The NAIC consumer guide, the most national document that exists on auto insurance, does not mention driver exclusions at all: the concept is documented only at state level.

The operator’s policy: the form the law contemplates for driving someone else’s car

There is a category of policy written for the person who drives a vehicle they do not own. Texas defines it:

“‘Operator’s policy’ means an automobile insurance policy that, in accordance with Section 601.077, Transportation Code, provides coverage for the named insured when operating an automobile the insured does not own.” — Texas Insurance Code §1952.351(4)

That is a legal category, not a promise that a particular insurer will sell you one. No source we located sets a rule on when an insurer may decline an applicant: the NAIC describes underwriting only in general terms — “Insurance companies underwrite to assess the risk associated with an applicant, group the applicant with other similar risks and decide if the company will accept the application” — and never keys it to license status.

Lending the car: the license condition is written about the driver

The NAIC describes permissive-driver coverage this way: “Some policies state specifically that no other person is covered when driving your car. However, almost all liability policies cover a licensed driver who drives your car with your permission.”

Read carefully where the word licensed falls: on the person driving, not on the person paying for the policy. The NAIC does not describe what happens when the driver is unlicensed, and we will not infer it.

California: the state’s low-cost program accepts the AB 60 license

California runs a state low-cost liability insurance program (California Low Cost Automobile Insurance). Among its published requirements, the state’s Department of Insurance includes a sentence almost nobody reproduces:

“You must have a valid California driver’s license. AB 60 license is accepted.”

The AB 60 license is the one California issues regardless of immigration status (see driver’s license in California). So the program does require a license, and an AB 60 license counts as one for entry.

The program’s other published parameters, as the department states them on August 11, 2026: annual income must be 250% or less of the federal poverty level; the car must be worth $25,000 or less; and the policy limits are $10,000 for bodily injury or death per person, $20,000 for bodily injury or death per accident, and $3,000 for property damage per accident. The department adds about those limits: “However, these limits do satisfy state financial responsibility laws.”

This describes a program’s rules, not an assessment of anyone’s situation. State program amounts change — check the California Department of Insurance page before acting.

A state agency has already put in writing that insurance and registration are different

When the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles adopted its new identification rules for vehicle registration (published February 27, 2026), a public comment raised exactly the tension on this page: “insurance companies are willing to insure motorists on the basis of foreign passports without visa or immigration documentation, so the rules would create a disparity between the requirements for insurance and the requirements for vehicle registration.”

The agency’s response, in the same document:

“The department agrees that there is a difference between insurance requirements and registration requirements. However, the business practices of insurance companies are not equivalent to the policy considerations of state government.”

That is an official acknowledgement that insuring and registering are governed by separate rules. What the passage says about insurers is the practice reported by commenters, not a rule — do not read it as permission. How the other side of that line works is covered in registering a car and getting plates without a Social Security number.

What the sources do not say

Naming the silence is part of the answer:

  • No national authority states whether a driver’s license is required to buy an auto policy. We checked and confirmed the silence in: the NAIC Consumer’s Guide to Auto Insurance, the NAIC consumer auto page, the California Department of Insurance Automobile Insurance guide, and the Texas Department of Insurance auto FAQ. We found no source saying it is required, and none saying it is not.
  • We found no rule on whether an insurer may decline an applicant who has no license. Acceptance of applications is described only in general underwriting terms.
  • No source we located addresses a matrícula consular or a foreign passport as identification for buying a policy. The only agency text touching the subject is the TxDMV comment and response quoted above, and it describes insurer practice, not a rule.
  • We found no state that prohibits insuring a vehicle whose owner is unlicensed. The absence of a prohibition we could find is not evidence that it is permitted, and we do not present it as such.
  • The NAIC’s national guide does not mention named driver exclusions. We verified that device only in Texas, New York, Wisconsin and California.

Official sources

Last verified: 2026-08-11. General information, not legal advice. Insurance and financial-responsibility rules are set by the states and change; for how a policy or a traffic violation may affect an immigration case, consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ/BIA-accredited representative.