Ex-wife named driver-cheaper premium - illegal?
Discussion
4rephill said:
Being married makes people safer drivers? - How does that one work? 
It doesn't make you any safer, but it does make you a lower risk. Ability to share driving on longer trips, have a designated driver if drinking, more likely to have kids in the car so driving more sensibly, less likely to be out on the town with car parked up in city centre late at night, etc etc. 4rephill said:
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? 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.
wibble cb said:
Same logic that says if you had a no fault accident, you are now more likely to have another....
...or the car being parked in the road is cheaper than if it's on the drive.The usual explanation is it's just the quirky risk / claim history algorithms they use, but I did see another angle explained recently - that some people are less sensitive to higher premiums. So perhaps they think single people will be happy to pay more.
tigger1 said:
4rephill said:
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? 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.
I'm on good terms with my ex and for a number of reasons (not solely for premium purposes) we are named drivers on each other's policies. There are several factors which come into play which have to be considered. One is that she now lives in a higher risk postcode than I do. Another is I discovered that she acquired some Nectar points and subsequently had an at fault prang (whereas I have neither on my record) during the course of this year, both of which I had to declare at my recent renewal.
It made
all difference that we seldom actually have a need to drive each other's cars: the upshot was that my insurer took the view that it was exposed to increased risk and my premium was loaded accordingly. We agreed that it was only fair that she should make a contribution due to her indiscretions. 
98elise said:
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.
um, no.If you say your car is kept in a garage, but your garage is inaccessible (I.e. full of crap), then that is deliberately misleading the insurer.
If it's normally kept in the garage, but is stolen from the driveway then that's not an issue.
If there is the realistic possibility that someone named might drive your car (I.e. they need to borrow it or drive you back) then it's fine.
If however that person would not or could not drive your car (I.e. they aren't allowed within 100 yards of your property) but you keep them on to lower your insurance then that's fraudulent.
I don't believe the OP has anything to worry about, and I imagine most youngsters would benefit having their mum on the policy until they've well flown the nest, but there are circumstances around divorce where you have to think carefully.
And of I've thought about it then I can Guarantee an insurance claim investigator has.
Evanivitch said:
If however that person would not or could not drive your car (I.e. they aren't allowed within 100 yards of your property) but you keep them on to lower your insurance then that's fraudulent.
Yes, well I am sure we would all avoid letting someone we have a restraining order against drive our car. Would you care to look at an even more unlikely scenario for us?Some still haven't got the idea of Fraud as yet.
Drumroll said:
Yes, well I am sure we would all avoid letting someone we have a restraining order against drive our car. Would you care to look at an even more unlikely scenario for us?
Some still haven't got the idea of Fraud as yet.
Unlikely, yes, impossible, no.Some still haven't got the idea of Fraud as yet.
And if you financially gained by knowingly misleading the insurance company then that is fraud.
Evanivitch said:
And of I've thought about it then I can Guarantee an insurance claim investigator has.
Thru work, I've been involved with loads of claims, and seem loads of investigators, and not one has taken the slightest interest in any other driver on the policy other than the policyholder and / or the person driving at the time of the claim.If the policyholder was the driver, then they won't even question anything about other drivers named on the insurance.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Thru work, I've been involved with loads of claims, and seem loads of investigators, and not one has taken the slightest interest in any other driver on the policy other than the policyholder and / or the person driving at the time of the claim.
If the policyholder was the driver, then they won't even question anything about other drivers named on the insurance.
And that makes it any less fraudulent? If the policyholder was the driver, then they won't even question anything about other drivers named on the insurance.
Evanivitch said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Thru work, I've been involved with loads of claims, and seem loads of investigators, and not one has taken the slightest interest in any other driver on the policy other than the policyholder and / or the person driving at the time of the claim.
If the policyholder was the driver, then they won't even question anything about other drivers named on the insurance.
And that makes it any less fraudulent? If the policyholder was the driver, then they won't even question anything about other drivers named on the insurance.
If I were running an insurance company, I'd rather attract customers who were cautious with their money and looked for savings. It says something about their character. Insurers like cautious people.
Centurion07 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The policy does not state the additional drivers have to drive.
I think he's being pedantic in saying if the policyholder KNOWS the named driver will definitely NOT ever drive the car then that's...*gasp*...FRAUD!!!!111!1!!OMG!!!1That's the point...you never know.
Centurion07 said:
Won't someone think of all those poor insurance companies going out of business because of named drivers not actually driving the cars they're named on. The humanity!
I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.If you make a claim on your insurance, particularly a large one, you will quickly find where your insurer's first loyalty lies. It's with their shareholders.
They will go over everything, even your posts on PH, looking for any opportunity to reduce their liability.
If they dug their heels in and invited you to sue them, at best it'd be expensive. You can expect to be asked about your circumstances when you completed your application. Similarly the ombudsman, if that applied.
They are not stupid.
Personally, I don't rely on them to play fair, I give them no room not to..
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's not fraudulent. The policy does not state the additional drivers have to drive. neither does the proposal form. It could be an insurance company wants to attract customers who are financially astute, as they feel that they will be a better risk, less risk of defaulting on instalments etc. They might be offering a discount for adding additional drivers in the hope of attracting customers smart enough to know insurers offer a discount for adding additional drivers. The insurers might know full well that a lot of the time they are being added solely to reduce premium, and these are the type of shrewd customers they are looking for!
If I were running an insurance company, I'd rather attract customers who were cautious with their money and looked for savings. It says something about their character. Insurers like cautious people.
If that's the case, would it be legal for someone that you have no connection to other than a knowledge that they are low risk to be added to your insurance policy for the only reason of reducing your policy? If I were running an insurance company, I'd rather attract customers who were cautious with their money and looked for savings. It says something about their character. Insurers like cautious people.
Because if you can, then there's money to be made in selling the details of low risk drivers to add to someone's policy.
Now that might not be illegal, and it might not be against the contract, but I doubt insurance companies would look favourably on it.
To those that think I'm being obtuse, grow up. I took my mother off my insurance policy because there's no way I could justify her needing to drive any of my cars. It just seemed common sense when I moved in with my partner even if I could still get a discount from my mother being on the policy.
Sticks. said:
I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
If you make a claim on your insurance, particularly a large one, you will quickly find where your insurer's first loyalty lies. It's with their shareholders.
They will go over everything, even your posts on PH, looking for any opportunity to reduce their liability.
If they dug their heels in and invited you to sue them, at best it'd be expensive. You can expect to be asked about your circumstances when you completed your application. Similarly the ombudsman, if that applied.
They are not stupid.
Personally, I don't rely on them to play fair, I give them no room not to..
Aside from Loon being pretty vociferous in his assertion that insurance companies are not routinely scouring forums to stitch their policyholders up, we're talking about named drivers.If you make a claim on your insurance, particularly a large one, you will quickly find where your insurer's first loyalty lies. It's with their shareholders.
They will go over everything, even your posts on PH, looking for any opportunity to reduce their liability.
If they dug their heels in and invited you to sue them, at best it'd be expensive. You can expect to be asked about your circumstances when you completed your application. Similarly the ombudsman, if that applied.
They are not stupid.
Personally, I don't rely on them to play fair, I give them no room not to..
There are just no circumstances where an insurance company is going to start asking if named drivers have actually driven the car. As Twig says, all they're interested in is who was driving at the time of the incident.
Centurion07 said:
Aside from Loon being pretty vociferous in his assertion that insurance companies are not routinely scouring forums to stitch their policyholders up, we're talking about named drivers.
There are just no circumstances where an insurance company is going to start asking if named drivers have actually driven the car. As Twig says, all they're interested in is who was driving at the time of the incident.
Routinely, no, but if you owned a company faced with paying out a figure well into 7 figures, wouldn't you? Or, to put it another way, are you 100% sure of them not doing so?There are just no circumstances where an insurance company is going to start asking if named drivers have actually driven the car. As Twig says, all they're interested in is who was driving at the time of the incident.
I think they'd look at whether you'd paid the appropriate premium for the level of risk they took on.
You might be right, but personally, I'd rather be sure.
Sticks. said:
Routinely, no, but if you owned a company faced with paying out a figure well into 7 figures, wouldn't you? Or, to put it another way, are you 100% sure of them not doing so?
In a big personal injury claim they get forced to pay out even if the link to their liability is extremely tenuous.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff