Ex-wife named driver-cheaper premium - illegal?

[HTP99]

A friend did this with his Lotus; his wife was on the insurance but she never drove it, he asked for her to be removed, the insurance shot up, so he left her on it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

That is not the definition of fraud. It's not even close.

[Centurion07]

drf765 said:

Make sure she knows about it though.

Why?

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

That is not the definition of fraud. It's not even close.

It's a bit dodgy if they are divorced as her relationship to the policyholder is now incorrect.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

That is not the definition of fraud. It's not even close.

It's a bit dodgy if they are divorced as her relationship to the policyholder is now incorrect.

Nowhere does the OP state he's told his insurers anything but the truth. If he's claiming a husband and wife discount and they are divorced, then you have a point. But that's not the case here. She is just added as a named driver.

There could be any number of reasons a divorced couple would want to stay as drivers on each other's policy, especially if they have kids.

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Nowhere does the OP state he's told his insurers anything but the truth. If he's claiming a husband and wife discount and they are divorced, then you have a point. But that's not the case here. She is just added as a named driver.

There could be any number of reasons a divorced couple would want to stay as drivers on each other's policy, especially if they have kids.

I can't recall doing one where it didn't ask for the named driver's relationship with the policyholder.

[djohnson]

I genuinely can't see a problem. There's clearly some potential that she might need to drive the car and historically she has. If he was proposing adding to his insurance someone he had virtually no relationship with for the purposes of getting the price down then I can see how that might be dubious.

I have my Dad insured on my car, he's never ever driven it but one day it might be useful.

One of our cars still has our former nanny on the insurance from when she worked for us. On rare occasions now she does odds and sods of babysitting and errands and doesn't generally need to use our cars but one day it might be useful.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Nowhere does the OP state he's told his insurers anything but the truth. If he's claiming a husband and wife discount and they are divorced, then you have a point. But that's not the case here. She is just added as a named driver.

There could be any number of reasons a divorced couple would want to stay as drivers on each other's policy, especially if they have kids.

I can't recall doing one where it didn't ask for the named driver's relationship with the policyholder.

Correct. He needs to answer unrelated or friend, depending on their options. What's the problem?

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Correct. He needs to answer unrelated or friend, depending on their options. What's the problem?

None, if he's done that.

[liner33]

I've always had my wife insured on my weekend cars which she has no intention of ever driving and I certainly wouldnt want her to

[drf765]

Centurion07 said:

drf765 said:

Make sure she knows about it though.

Why?

I'm sure that if insurance companies found out that policy holders had been using random names as drivers to secure a reduction in costs they would use that to void your insurance and refuse to meet a claim.
I know in thsi case the name wasn't random but you can imagine the rapid uptake in this idea to secure a cost reduction and teh equally rapid refusals on the part of insurers..

[Gavia]

Evanivitch said:

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?

Fraud, volatile divorces, restraining orders. How extreme is the world where you live?

[Red Devil]

Centurion07 said:

drf765 said:

Make sure she knows about it though.

Why?

Because as the policyholder he needs to know her driving history post divorce.
She could have since accumulated 9 points or had any number of at fault RTCs.
He would have to declare any relevant facts at each renewal anniversary.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Correct. He needs to answer unrelated or friend, depending on their options. What's the problem?

None, if he's done that.

There's nothing in the OP to suggest he hasn't. This is a thread about adding on people who will never drive, which is fine. Not about lying about the relationship between the drivers, which isn't fine.

[Drumroll]

drf765 said:

I'm sure that if insurance companies found out that policy holders had been using random names as drivers to secure a reduction in costs they would use that to void your insurance and refuse to meet a claim.
I know in thsi case the name wasn't random but you can imagine the rapid uptake in this idea to secure a cost reduction and teh equally rapid refusals on the part of insurers..

But so far no one on here has talked about random names. They are all people the policy holder has a relationship with.

where would you draw the line? I think post parents (me included) who have younger children with cars, are named drivers on their policy. I think this year I have driven her car once.

Edited by Drumroll on Friday 25th November 12:19

Edited by Drumroll on Friday 25th November 12:21

[TwigtheWonderkid]

drf765 said:

I'm sure that if insurance companies found out that policy holders had been using random names as drivers to secure a reduction in costs they would use that to void your insurance and refuse to meet a claim.

Rubbish. It's actually very difficult for an insurer to void a policy and refuse to meet a claim, and it's only done for the most serious non disclosures where the policyholder has out and out lied about important matters. No way in a million years could they void a policy for adding on a driver who didn't even know they'd been added on. provided the details given for the added driver were correct.

Again, there could be genuine reasons for this. I could add a parent knowing that in an emergency, they are someone I could call upon to drive my car, without ever getting round to telling them.

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's nothing in the OP to suggest he hasn't. .

Well, he suggests he's left her on the policy. Which implies he hasn't changed it.

Even so, I can't for the life of me imagine it would affect a claim made by the OP.

I've had the MB I used for business for 12yrs and my wife has always been a named driver, but has never driven it. I don't for a moment consider this to be an issue. OTOH both our "kids" (in their early 30's now) have always been insured on my wife's car but haven't driven it for some years.

[anothernameitist]

Is she on as your wife ( spouse) or just a random friend.

If she is on as your wife, then this is wrong,because she is your ex being married is SUPPOSED to make us less of a risk.

[4rephill]

anothernameitist said:

Is she on as your wife ( spouse) or just a random friend.

If she is on as your wife, then this is wrong,because she is your ex being married is SUPPOSED to make us less of a risk.

Being married makes people safer drivers? - How does that one work?

[wibble cb]

Same logic that says if you had a no fault accident, you are now more likely to have another....