Ex-wife named driver-cheaper premium - illegal?
Discussion
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?
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.
You're talking utter tripe. There is no way in a million years an insurance company could walk away from a claim because your named driver never drove. They wouldn't even try. Or probably not even ask. 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.
The ABI have very strict rules that insurers have to work to. In order to refuse a claim, they've got to show they were deliberately and seriously misled, and what's more, had they known the truth, they would not have covered you at all. What insurers do you know who will cover you with a named driver, but without them, would not have covered you at all?
Lots of insurance claims are investigated, and often the client has to pay additional premium going back several years for non disclosed convictions and the like. But claims refused completely are very rare. Almost exclusively reserved for the non disclosure of serious offences like drink driving, or these days, young drivers on parents policy who were meant to be occasional drivers when in fact the car was effectively theirs and they were the main/exclusive driver. (fronting).
sealtt said:
It means the person is now insured to drive that car, not that they are now going to necessarily drive that car, just that they are now insured via your policy should they ever go ahead and drive it.
Isn't that the definition of insurance, you insure against what might happen, as opposed to assurance, as that is when an event most definitely will happen (ie death) ?Ergo adding an additional driver would seem prudent as they might need to drive the car at some point...
Exactly that; I have always had a close mate insured as a named-driver on my BEC, simply because if we're playing-out for the day, he'll likely be involved; and since the BEC is equal parts fun and knackering to be able to share the driving entirely legally is both fun, sensible, and worthwhile.
I too found having a named driver made the premium slightly cheaper than the cost of adding said pal in the first place. But that's not the point; it does not require said pal ever drives it, it just means we can share petrol-inspired days out across cars between us without any further thought
I too found having a named driver made the premium slightly cheaper than the cost of adding said pal in the first place. But that's not the point; it does not require said pal ever drives it, it just means we can share petrol-inspired days out across cars between us without any further thought
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lots of insurance claims are investigated, and often the client has to pay additional premium going back several years for non disclosed convictions and the like. But claims refused completely are very rare. Almost exclusively reserved for the non disclosure of serious offences like drink driving, or these days, young drivers on parents policy who were meant to be occasional drivers when in fact the car was effectively theirs and they were the main/exclusive driver. (fronting).
Not to mention undeclared mods as well. Bissmire - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...Sheepshanks said:
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.
I'm in my early 50's, probably at my peak income, with least outgoings (mortgage recently payed off and kids off to uni). My insurance is £160 per year. I could easily pay many multiples of my premuim and it not hurt at all, yet insurance companies don't charge me much at all.
The only charge me buttons because I'm low risk. In my youth I had a few minor accidents, but as I got older that stopped, funny that!
98elise said:
Sheepshanks said:
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.
I'm in my early 50's, probably at my peak income, with least outgoings (mortgage recently payed off and kids off to uni). My insurance is £160 per year. I could easily pay many multiples of my premuim and it not hurt at all, yet insurance companies don't charge me much at all.
The only charge me buttons because I'm low risk. In my youth I had a few minor accidents, but as I got older that stopped, funny that!
This is is why I went into banking, its much more honest.....
wibble cb said:
98elise said:
Sheepshanks said:
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.
I'm in my early 50's, probably at my peak income, with least outgoings (mortgage recently payed off and kids off to uni). My insurance is £160 per year. I could easily pay many multiples of my premuim and it not hurt at all, yet insurance companies don't charge me much at all.
The only charge me buttons because I'm low risk. In my youth I had a few minor accidents, but as I got older that stopped, funny that!
This is is why I went into banking, its much more honest.....
Its what actuaries do for a living.
98elise said:
I'm in my early 50's, probably at my peak income, with least outgoings (mortgage recently payed off and kids off to uni). My insurance is £160 per year. I could easily pay many multiples of my premuim and it not hurt at all, yet insurance companies don't charge me much at all.
Right - but at this stage of your life you expect the premium to be cheap. You're also likely to be savvy money-wise, and have time on your hands to shop around.The suggestion was that, if the premium is, say, in the £600 year area then people aren't bothered about saving £50 or whatever. To you that would be a massive difference. I also think younger people are so good, or aren't so bothered, about shopping around.
wibble cb said:
Equally, I fail to see how my car being hit while a)stationary and b)parked 5 miles from where I was at the time it was hit makes me more liable to have another claim,
..it's because clearly you park in places where your car is likely to run into.I don't know - they reckon the average driver has an accident every 5 years so logically you'd think if you'd had an accident the premium should go down, and then increase as it got nearer to 5 years!
Sheepshanks said:
In a big personal injury claim they get forced to pay out even if the link to their liability is extremely tenuous.
If it's a big PI claim you'll aim to settle through mediation, formal or otherwise. If you can't, it'll go to court, if you've taken out enough legal cover. Unless that's changed, has it?TwigtheWonderkid said:
The ABI have very strict rules that insurers have to work to. In order to refuse a claim, they've got to show they were deliberately and seriously misled, and what's more, had they known the truth, they would not have covered you at all. What insurers do you know who will cover you with a named driver, but without them, would not have covered you at all?
If you deliberately added someone knowing they wouldn't drive it, then you've deliberately misled for the purpose of reducing your premium. I'm not suggesting the OP has though.Yes, I've read about insurers asking for additional premiums, backdated. Is that an obligation though? If not, I wouldn't want to rely on it, is my point.
Sheepshanks said:
wibble cb said:
Equally, I fail to see how my car being hit while a)stationary and b)parked 5 miles from where I was at the time it was hit makes me more liable to have another claim,
..it's because clearly you park in places where your car is likely to run into.I don't know - they reckon the average driver has an accident every 5 years so logically you'd think if you'd had an accident the premium should go down, and then increase as it got nearer to 5 years!
Sticks. said:
If you deliberately added someone knowing they wouldn't drive it, then you've deliberately misled for the purpose of reducing your premium. I'm not suggesting the OP has though.
But that's not what fraud is. As there is no general 'abuse' concept like there is in paying tax. so it's not a problem.If the process for adding a named driver had a requirement for the named driver being 'likely' to drive (with a definition of likely) then there are rules to break. But there aren't.
Surprisingly insurance companies aren't dummies. They know you can't put random people on as named drivers as you have to declare several facts about them. So adding a named driver that will 'never' drive it is not a bad thing.
Bert
BertBert said:
Surprisingly insurance companies aren't dummies. They know you can't put random people on as named drivers as you have to declare several facts about them. So adding a named driver that will 'never' drive it is not a bad thing.
Bert
Which goes back to my earlier point, is there money to be made in selling the details of a "safe" driver? Bert
Sticks. said:
If it's a big PI claim you'll aim to settle through mediation, formal or otherwise. If you can't, it'll go to court, if you've taken out enough legal cover. Unless that's changed, has it?
If it's a big PI claim you, as an individual, won't be doing anything. It'll go to court and the MIB will direct any insurer they can link to the vehicle / driver to pick up the tab.
Sheepshanks said:
If it's a big PI claim you, as an individual, won't be doing anything.
It'll go to court and the MIB will direct any insurer they can link to the vehicle / driver to pick up the tab.
I was thinking from the perspective of the PI claimant.It'll go to court and the MIB will direct any insurer they can link to the vehicle / driver to pick up the tab.
If Bert's right it seems odd to me. But still, as he says, they're not dummies, far from it.
Evanivitch said:
BertBert said:
Surprisingly insurance companies aren't dummies. They know you can't put random people on as named drivers as you have to declare several facts about them. So adding a named driver that will 'never' drive it is not a bad thing.
Bert
Which goes back to my earlier point, is there money to be made in selling the details of a "safe" driver? Bert
The amount you'd save is not huge so the amount that could be paid for those details is minimal, and who's going to risk being accused of being "the driver" in an accident for £20?
Going back to your earlier point about it being fraud; insurance companies are pretty specific about the questions they ask, so why do they not ask if all named drivers WILL drive the car at some point during the policy's term?
Sheepshanks said:
98elise said:
I'm in my early 50's, probably at my peak income, with least outgoings (mortgage recently payed off and kids off to uni). My insurance is £160 per year. I could easily pay many multiples of my premuim and it not hurt at all, yet insurance companies don't charge me much at all.
Right - but at this stage of your life you expect the premium to be cheap. You're also likely to be savvy money-wise, and have time on your hands to shop around.The suggestion was that, if the premium is, say, in the £600 year area then people aren't bothered about saving £50 or whatever. To you that would be a massive difference. I also think younger people are so good, or aren't so bothered, about shopping around.
If you can show young people are charged way more than their risk then you have a huge business opportunity on your hands. Start a business selling cheaper insurance that all the rip off companies and you will make a mint.
My sons insurance is 10 times mine, if you offer it for 5 times mine then he will buy it. You will be making 400% profit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff