Ex-wife named driver-cheaper premium - illegal?

[Fastchas]

I left my ex-wife on my insurance as we often borrowed cars around service/MOT times etc.
This year, I realised we hadn't swapped cars for a while and thought it would be cheaper to remove her.
WRONG, the premium went up so I said leave her on.
So I pay cheaper premiums, the ex is insured but doesn't drive it (but is able to if she asks) so the insurer is exposed to less risk, surely?
Is this 'against their rules'?

[anonymous-user]

I doubt it. You're insuring someone additional on your policy. There is no mandate for her to actually drive the car.

My dad has been on my car insurance for years. He doesn't know anything about it.

Everyone on the company books is insured to drive my car, none of them have, it hasn't invalidated anything.

[Drumroll]

Same her I am on father in laws policy as named driver, haven't driven his car in over 10 years. It is a just in case. Not doing anything wrong. Far better that way than heaven forbid he is taken ill and I need to drive him home and then have all the hassle of making sure I am covered.

[Ste1987]

My mum's still a named driver on my policy and I don't even live with her anymore. The insurer even encouraged me to keep her on when I renewed

[BertBert]

It seems slightly intuitive for insurance to go down by putting an old person in as named driver.

Much less so with one's ex wife.

It's certainly not illegal or breaking any rules. But anyone know why it would be cheaper?

Bert

[Flooble]

Interestingly I used to have my Dad on my insurance as I was away a lot and it was handy if he could take the car for MoT, service or whatever.

A few years ago the premium went up when he was added ...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

It seems slightly intuitive for insurance to go down by putting an old person in as named driver.

Much less so with one's ex wife.

It's certainly not illegal or breaking any rules. But anyone know why it would be cheaper?

Bert

If the additional driver is perceived to be a lower risk than the policyholder, it's often cheaper to add them as a driver because when they are driving it, the policyholder isn't.

[hora]

Fastchas said:

I left my ex-wife on my insurance as we often borrowed cars around service/MOT times etc.
This year, I realised we hadn't swapped cars for a while and thought it would be cheaper to remove her.
WRONG, the premium went up so I said leave her on.
So I pay cheaper premiums, the ex is insured but doesn't drive it (but is able to if she asks) so the insurer is exposed to less risk, surely?
Is this 'against their rules'?

You are gaining a financial advantage fraudulently.

[Evanivitch]

Fastchas said:

I left my ex-wife on my insurance as we often borrowed cars around service/MOT times etc.
This year, I realised we hadn't swapped cars for a while and thought it would be cheaper to remove her.
WRONG, the premium went up so I said leave her on.
So I pay cheaper premiums, the ex is insured but doesn't drive it (but is able to if she asks) so the insurer is exposed to less risk, surely?
Is this 'against their rules'?

I'm not an expert but I'd consider some reasonable questions to ask yourself:

Can you foresee an example that she would drive the car?
If her car broke down, would she have use of your car?
Do you absolutely hate her and cry yourself to sleep at the idea of her scratching your pride and joy?

[Drumroll]

hora said:

You are gaining a financial advantage fraudulently.

How can this be fraud?

[mac96]

I have had exactly the same thing- keeping an ex wife on my motor policy kept the premium down; later on, adding the new wife (yes, we never learn) also reduced the premium in spite of her having only just passed her test.

I think the insurers stats imply that a single man is a maniac driver, hooning around, whereas a man with a wife/partner is a responsible citizen who does not have so many accidents. Probably logical to a degree en masse, but with odd results for the individual insured.

Edited to add: to the original point: it is fine to have an additional driver on your policy 'just in case'. The premium calculation is the insurers problem!

Edited by mac96 on Thursday 24th November 22:06

[Evanivitch]

Drumroll said:

How can this be fraud?

If it's being done purely for financial gain and has no practical justification then it would be fraudulent.

[Gavia]

Evanivitch said:

Drumroll said:

How can this be fraud?

If it's being done purely for financial gain and has no practical justification then it would be fraudulent.

Rubbish. It's a safety move and makes sense to leave her on, as she might have to drive his car.

[wibble cb]

Surely it's only fraudulent if she wanted to actually drive the car as the main driver (ie fronting)?? As an occasional secondary driver, not so much.

[BertBert]

How can it be fraud?

[Centurion07]

"Fraudulent".

[Evanivitch]

Gavia said:

Rubbish. It's a safety move and makes sense to leave her on, as she might have to drive his car.

Then that is a justification...

But if they were going through a volatile divorce and there was a restraining order in place then that would no longer be valid.

Why does PH struggle with logic?

[98elise]

Drumroll said:

Same her I am on father in laws policy as named driver, haven't driven his car in over 10 years. It is a just in case. Not doing anything wrong. Far better that way than heaven forbid he is taken ill and I need to drive him home and then have all the hassle of making sure I am covered.

Same here for my mother. I have DOC on my policy, but its good to know I'm named on hers. I don't remember the last time I actually needed to drive it.

As long as the insurer doesn't say the named driver must drive x miles each year, then I can't see an issue.

[98elise]

Evanivitch said:

Drumroll said:

How can this be fraud?

If it's being done purely for financial gain and has no practical justification then it would be fraudulent.

bks. Its a simple contract between you and the insurer. You tell them what you want to insure, and they tell you the price, as long as you have been truthful and follow the T&C's then there is no fraud.

Its no different to parking your in a garage because its cheaper to insure that way. They are offering cheaper prices if you meet certain circumstances.

[drf765]

Fastchas said:

I left my ex-wife on my insurance as we often borrowed cars around service/MOT times etc.
This year, I realised we hadn't swapped cars for a while and thought it would be cheaper to remove her.
WRONG, the premium went up so I said leave her on.
So I pay cheaper premiums, the ex is insured but doesn't drive it (but is able to if she asks) so the insurer is exposed to less risk, surely?
Is this 'against their rules'?

Make sure she knows about it though.