Not Informing Insurance Company of Accident history
Discussion
I pretty much know the answer to this. Actually, I know. A chap who works in the office next door mine has a dire history of smashing up cars. I would say, complete lack of skill and not driving to conditions, as opposed to a lunatic. Anyway, I was chatting to him because he just wrote off his 4th banger in 8 years and he asked me about his options for leasing a car. I immediately noted his third party insurance being an issue, to which he replied, no no, I have full cover. Err, how is that possible. I mean who would touch the guy. He replied that he never bothered to inform his insurance company. Two accidents in his wife car/policy. Others he just hit a hedge or similar and not another car. He never claimed on his policy. The muppet can't see the issue. I told him he is taking a huge risk and if found out would have his policy cancelled. Maybe even get reported for breaking some law.
The one thing that struck me, was in the scenario you never claimed I guess there is no record but he did write off his wife car who did claim and marked him down as the driver. There was also an injury in the other vehicle and the plod were involved but did not take it further due to lack of evidence, other driver didn't make a fuss according to him. He did attend a day long driving course as required by the police. Surely there is a record of all of this. I don't believe one could just duck under the radar.
The one thing that struck me, was in the scenario you never claimed I guess there is no record but he did write off his wife car who did claim and marked him down as the driver. There was also an injury in the other vehicle and the plod were involved but did not take it further due to lack of evidence, other driver didn't make a fuss according to him. He did attend a day long driving course as required by the police. Surely there is a record of all of this. I don't believe one could just duck under the radar.
How long ago was the last claim that actually went thru the insurance system? Maybe there's nothing to disclose after all this time.
If he has tp cover and writes his own car off with no others involved, it would never be on the insurer's radar.
I wrote off a motorcycle on tpo cover, no other vehicle involved. I never bothered to tell anyone.
If he has tp cover and writes his own car off with no others involved, it would never be on the insurer's radar.
I wrote off a motorcycle on tpo cover, no other vehicle involved. I never bothered to tell anyone.
carreauchompeur said:
The injury RTC would probably be on an insurance database and would come back to bite him hard on the arse in the case of a high value claim.
Like, for instance, totalling his new lease car
Agreed-I assume come renewal time, insurers just process the docs and don't need to check for 'history'. Come claim time they would. Silly ladLike, for instance, totalling his new lease car
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How long ago was the last claim that actually went thru the insurance system? Maybe there's nothing to disclose after all this time.
If he has tp cover and writes his own car off with no others involved, it would never be on the insurer's radar.
I wrote off a motorcycle on tpo cover, no other vehicle involved. I never bothered to tell anyone.
Last one was under a year ago. I only raised it as he is car less again. He definitely has pull cover and he is also a named driver on his wife policy (last car he smashed). His wife insurance co must know of the recent smash as he did it and they claimed.If he has tp cover and writes his own car off with no others involved, it would never be on the insurer's radar.
I wrote off a motorcycle on tpo cover, no other vehicle involved. I never bothered to tell anyone.
As to whether or not they would find out I have no idea to what extent information is shared, although presumably they'd instantly find out.
I'd say his non-disclosure of crashes to his insurance company would be 'deliberate or reckless' under the legislation meaning he'd have his policy avoided, no claims paid out and they can also potentially keep his premium! Usually the wording of the question will be about whether he or any other driver has been involved in a crash - nice and wide to catch folk like him. He's setting himself up for a big risk if he ever crashes something expensive...
I'd say his non-disclosure of crashes to his insurance company would be 'deliberate or reckless' under the legislation meaning he'd have his policy avoided, no claims paid out and they can also potentially keep his premium! Usually the wording of the question will be about whether he or any other driver has been involved in a crash - nice and wide to catch folk like him. He's setting himself up for a big risk if he ever crashes something expensive...
Twin1 said:
As to whether or not they would find out I have no idea to what extent information is shared, although presumably they'd instantly find out.
I'd say his non-disclosure of crashes to his insurance company would be 'deliberate or reckless' under the legislation meaning he'd have his policy avoided, no claims paid out and they can also potentially keep his premium! Usually the wording of the question will be about whether he or any other driver has been involved in a crash - nice and wide to catch folk like him. He's setting himself up for a big risk if he ever crashes something expensive...
quite- a scenario whereby he hits a high value car/injury and the claim is large. He would end up being personally liableI'd say his non-disclosure of crashes to his insurance company would be 'deliberate or reckless' under the legislation meaning he'd have his policy avoided, no claims paid out and they can also potentially keep his premium! Usually the wording of the question will be about whether he or any other driver has been involved in a crash - nice and wide to catch folk like him. He's setting himself up for a big risk if he ever crashes something expensive...
If he crashes a vehicle that is insured under his wifes name, yes he is covered third party only (through his own policy to drive another vehicle), but the claim will be dealt with on HER policy, as that vehicle is insured in her name.
As an example, I once had an incident skidding on ice, and hit a 3rd party vehicle, while driving my wife's car. My insurance policy was not affected or even involved, but it was my wife's insurers who had to deal with the claim. Sounds ludicrous I know (plus she wasn't even in the car at the time!).
As an example, I once had an incident skidding on ice, and hit a 3rd party vehicle, while driving my wife's car. My insurance policy was not affected or even involved, but it was my wife's insurers who had to deal with the claim. Sounds ludicrous I know (plus she wasn't even in the car at the time!).
Twin1 said:
As to whether or not they would find out I have no idea to what extent information is shared, although presumably they'd instantly find out.
I'd say his non-disclosure of crashes to his insurance company would be 'deliberate or reckless' under the legislation meaning he'd have his policy avoided, no claims paid out and they can also potentially keep his premium! Usually the wording of the question will be about whether he or any other driver has been involved in a crash - nice and wide to catch folk like him. He's setting himself up for a big risk if he ever crashes something expensive...
Don't they just ask if you've made any claims in the last 5 years?I'd say his non-disclosure of crashes to his insurance company would be 'deliberate or reckless' under the legislation meaning he'd have his policy avoided, no claims paid out and they can also potentially keep his premium! Usually the wording of the question will be about whether he or any other driver has been involved in a crash - nice and wide to catch folk like him. He's setting himself up for a big risk if he ever crashes something expensive...
Burwood said:
quite- a scenario whereby he hits a high value car/injury and the claim is large. He would end up being personally liable
I should really amend mine, you're absolutely right. He could crash a £100 banger but kill 10 people and be on the hook for millions. DanSI said:
If he crashes a vehicle that is insured under his wifes name, yes he is covered third party only (through his own policy to drive another vehicle), but the claim will be dealt with on HER policy, as that vehicle is insured in her name.
Yes, I've done the same myself (wrote off my brother's car, his policy) but I still need to disclose that I was in a crash and driving etc. Assuming he's on his wife's insurance policy she should be telling them about his crashes. If she's not telling them it could fall into the 'deliberate and reckless' category, or at best she'll be 'careless' in which case the insurer will pay out proportionately to the premium they would have charged if they'd known about the crashes. In a car-hits-bush scenario she's risking losing out on a few grand; on a seriously injuring a person scenario she's risking a lot again. Here's the wording from comparethemarket:
'Have you had any motor accidents, claims or losses in the past 5 years, no matter who was at fault or if a claim was made?'. I fall under 'motor accidents'. The lunatic the OP was talking about would have to disclose all four crashes (including hedge-gate) under that sort of wording.
Twin1 said:
Burwood said:
quite- a scenario whereby he hits a high value car/injury and the claim is large. He would end up being personally liable
I should really amend mine, you're absolutely right. He could crash a £100 banger but kill 10 people and be on the hook for millions. DanSI said:
If he crashes a vehicle that is insured under his wifes name, yes he is covered third party only (through his own policy to drive another vehicle), but the claim will be dealt with on HER policy, as that vehicle is insured in her name.
Yes, I've done the same myself (wrote off my brother's car, his policy) but I still need to disclose that I was in a crash and driving etc. Assuming he's on his wife's insurance policy she should be telling them about his crashes. If she's not telling them it could fall into the 'deliberate and reckless' category, or at best she'll be 'careless' in which case the insurer will pay out proportionately to the premium they would have charged if they'd known about the crashes. In a car-hits-bush scenario she's risking losing out on a few grand; on a seriously injuring a person scenario she's risking a lot again. Here's the wording from comparethemarket:
'Have you had any motor accidents, claims or losses in the past 5 years, no matter who was at fault or if a claim was made?'. I fall under 'motor accidents'. The lunatic the OP was talking about would have to disclose all four crashes (including hedge-gate) under that sort of wording.
Twin1 said:
Burwood said:
quite- a scenario whereby he hits a high value car/injury and the claim is large. He would end up being personally liable
I should really amend mine, you're absolutely right. He could crash a £100 banger but kill 10 people and be on the hook for millions.Hey-ho.
I kind of agree with him for the no-claim accidents. Its really not worth telling them as there really is no way they can find out. However surely he is going to get buggered if he gave his name well claiming on his wifes policy? Dont insurers tend to exchange information about that kind of thing?
Anywho its really not an issue, IF he does paraplege a bus full of aspiring rocket scientists his insurer IS going to investigate him prior to paying out. Once they find he has misled them they will pay out the 3rd party then seek costs from him, either he pays them his due or the lawyers ass rape him financially for the rest of his life.
Anywho its really not an issue, IF he does paraplege a bus full of aspiring rocket scientists his insurer IS going to investigate him prior to paying out. Once they find he has misled them they will pay out the 3rd party then seek costs from him, either he pays them his due or the lawyers ass rape him financially for the rest of his life.
TooMany2cvs said:
His insurer would pay out, so the people he hit wouldn't be affected by his stupidity - but he may very well find himself personally bankrupt as a result.
Hey-ho.
Is there protection which forces insurance companies to compensate victims even when they're avoiding a policy? I've never heard of that. Hey-ho.
Twin1 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
His insurer would pay out, so the people he hit wouldn't be affected by his stupidity - but he may very well find himself personally bankrupt as a result.
Hey-ho.
Is there protection which forces insurance companies to compensate victims even when they're avoiding a policy? I've never heard of that. Hey-ho.
But they CAN then turn right round and hand the bill straight back on to him, along with their costs.
TooMany2cvs said:
Yep. The insurer listed on MID has to pay out under the RTA. They cannot dodge it.
But they CAN then turn right round and hand the bill straight back on to him, along with their costs.
Ah, so the 'insured' can still be on the hook for £1M for third party damage, albeit the insurance company has already paid out. I didn't know that existed, very interesting! But they CAN then turn right round and hand the bill straight back on to him, along with their costs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff