Named driver crash my car - I have no details of what happen
Discussion
jamieduff1981 said:
To answer the question since nobody else has, "Fronting" is the practise of someone low risk (such as you) taking out a car insurance policy pretending to be the main driver in order for a named driver, whom the insurer understands to be an occassional user of the insured car, to use the car most of the time.
Common examples would be e.g. a teenage male driving round in "his" car but the insurance is in his mother's name and the insurer believes she is the main driver, because the insurance costs much less for a 40something mum as the main driver. This is a breach of contract with the insurer and where higher-risk named drivers crash the car, the insurer will explore this to find out not just who was actually driving but who really was the main user of the car.
The basis which needs to be understood is that the insurer either would have charged a much higher premium had they known the higher risk driver was really the person normally driving the car, or perhaps would have refused insurance for them entirely.
In your case your insurer will want to clarify that this banged up car was really your car, that it was really you who normally drove it, and it was normally parked outside your house for you to use, and that your brother simply borrowed it and crashed it. The bad outcome for you will be if the insurer realises that whilst it was your insurance policy, the car was mainly being used by your brother, wasn't normally parked outside your house, and that the insurance was in your name for convenience or because it seemed a cheaper way to get your brother insured.
Not an advocate of fronting but being realistic, as long as you don't accidentally let something slip, there's no way an insurer would know if someone else used the car most of the timeCommon examples would be e.g. a teenage male driving round in "his" car but the insurance is in his mother's name and the insurer believes she is the main driver, because the insurance costs much less for a 40something mum as the main driver. This is a breach of contract with the insurer and where higher-risk named drivers crash the car, the insurer will explore this to find out not just who was actually driving but who really was the main user of the car.
The basis which needs to be understood is that the insurer either would have charged a much higher premium had they known the higher risk driver was really the person normally driving the car, or perhaps would have refused insurance for them entirely.
In your case your insurer will want to clarify that this banged up car was really your car, that it was really you who normally drove it, and it was normally parked outside your house for you to use, and that your brother simply borrowed it and crashed it. The bad outcome for you will be if the insurer realises that whilst it was your insurance policy, the car was mainly being used by your brother, wasn't normally parked outside your house, and that the insurance was in your name for convenience or because it seemed a cheaper way to get your brother insured.
Acuity30 said:
Not an advocate of fronting but being realistic, as long as you don't accidentally let something slip, there's no way an insurer would know if someone else used the car most of the time
Right up until you need to claim you’re possibly correct. If you need to claim however there are plenty of ways in which an Insurer will be able to find out.
Don’t think encouraging Insurance Fraud will help the OP or others though.
alscar said:
Right up until you need to claim you’re possibly correct.
If you need to claim however there are plenty of ways in which an Insurer will be able to find out.
Don’t think encouraging Insurance Fraud will help the OP or others though.
There really aren't without breaking data protection laws. I've worked in insurance. We were given specific questions to try and 'gotcha' claimants, but if they said all the right things we just didn't have the resources to investigate further no matter what the claim value was. If you need to claim however there are plenty of ways in which an Insurer will be able to find out.
Don’t think encouraging Insurance Fraud will help the OP or others though.
Acuity30 said:
There really aren't without breaking data protection laws. I've worked in insurance. We were given specific questions to try and 'gotcha' claimants, but if they said all the right things we just didn't have the resources to investigate further no matter what the claim value was.
Depending on the Insurer , specific investigators can be used and claim quantum will of course possibly dictate this but don’t see how data protection laws will stop any investigation. It’s not about the claimant saying the right thing it’s about saying the wrong thing.
I’m assuming you worked in a claims dept from your comments ?
alscar said:
Acuity30 said:
There really aren't without breaking data protection laws. I've worked in insurance. We were given specific questions to try and 'gotcha' claimants, but if they said all the right things we just didn't have the resources to investigate further no matter what the claim value was.
Depending on the Insurer , specific investigators can be used and claim quantum will of course possibly dictate this but don’t see how data protection laws will stop any investigation. It’s not about the claimant saying the right thing it’s about saying the wrong thing.
I’m assuming you worked in a claims dept from your comments ?
justamumof3 said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Did he take the car without your consent?
No. He is named on my insurance and allowed to drive the car If you didn't, there is no chance whatsoever they will pay out.
mubariz said:
No ones given any examples of how they could investigate and prove fraud
If an Insurer is suspicious about the original details given then “ interviews “ will take place with the main driver and the named driver - separately. Said investigators will also have looked / be looking into their personal details.
Suspected Insurance Fraud investigation doesn’t just rely on someone in the Claims dept asking a few scripted questions and hoping to catch someone out.
There is nothing new about this.
alscar said:
If an Insurer is suspicious about the original details given then “ interviews “ will take place with the main driver and the named driver - separately.
Said investigators will also have looked / be looking into their personal details.
Suspected Insurance Fraud investigation doesn’t just rely on someone in the Claims dept asking a few scripted questions and hoping to catch someone out.
There is nothing new about this.
This is false. It isn't a police investigation, and its pretty easy for two people to come up with a basic story of what the car is used for and when. The insurer already has the customers 'personal details', they can't go any further than that, legally, due to GDPR. Said investigators will also have looked / be looking into their personal details.
Suspected Insurance Fraud investigation doesn’t just rely on someone in the Claims dept asking a few scripted questions and hoping to catch someone out.
There is nothing new about this.
Acuity30 said:
This is false. It isn't a police investigation, and its pretty easy for two people to come up with a basic story of what the car is used for and when. The insurer already has the customers 'personal details', they can't go any further than that, legally, due to GDPR.
Plus it is unlikely that an insurer can interview someone recalled to prison.Acuity30 said:
This is false. It isn't a police investigation, and its pretty easy for two people to come up with a basic story of what the car is used for and when. The insurer already has the customers 'personal details', they can't go any further than that, legally, due to GDPR.
Who said anything about Police ?I thought you said you worked in Insurance ?
The investigators will be asking and doing much more than simply concentrating on the car in question.
And as you say they already have the details of the drivers so again GDPR isn’t an issue.
alscar said:
Who said anything about Police ?
I thought you said you worked in Insurance ?
The investigators will be asking and doing much more than simply concentrating on the car in question.
And as you say they already have the details of the drivers so again GDPR isn’t an issue.
I have, and you're saying a whole lot of nothing. What is this 'much more'? And there really aren't many 'personal details' anyone can look through which can prove fronting, that's why so many people do it and get away with it. I thought you said you worked in Insurance ?
The investigators will be asking and doing much more than simply concentrating on the car in question.
And as you say they already have the details of the drivers so again GDPR isn’t an issue.
vaud said:
Plus it is unlikely that an insurer can interview someone recalled to prison.
Agreed - but I imagine the scenario which started this thread is in itself quite unusual. People “ front “ because they are either desperate to drive but cannot or do not want to afford Insurance premiums and think they are doing nothing wrong.
Realistically they probably get away with it until they need to make a claim and even at that stage still might.
But some don’t care or just feel lucky.
Acuity30 said:
I have, and you're saying a whole lot of nothing. What is this 'much more'? And there really aren't many 'personal details' anyone can look through which can prove fronting, that's why so many people do it and get away with it.
Then I can only assume you were not directly involved in claims or indeed for very long as you seem to be ignoring what I have said or suggesting instead that the Police were involved. Perhaps google it if you think I’ve not been helpful or simply don’t believe me.
You are right in that many people do it and I have already said that until there is an incident and even then they still might get away with it.
Alternatively don’t believe me at all ( I’m good with that ) and carry on believing that it’s fine to front because nothing will ever be investigated even though ultimately all our Insurances carry a loading no doubt for uninsured motorists.
alscar said:
Then I can only assume you were not directly involved in claims or indeed for very long as you seem to be ignoring what I have said or suggesting instead that the Police were involved.
Perhaps google it if you think I’ve not been helpful or simply don’t believe me.
You are right in that many people do it and I have already said that until there is an incident and even then they still might get away with it.
Alternatively don’t believe me at all ( I’m good with that ) and carry on believing that it’s fine to front because nothing will ever be investigated even though ultimately all our Insurances carry a loading no doubt for uninsured motorists.
You've said nothing, nothing of substance to ignore other than 'personal details' and strange talks of interviews. Where did I say it's fine to front? I suggest you read my first post in this thread to remind yourself. Perhaps google it if you think I’ve not been helpful or simply don’t believe me.
You are right in that many people do it and I have already said that until there is an incident and even then they still might get away with it.
Alternatively don’t believe me at all ( I’m good with that ) and carry on believing that it’s fine to front because nothing will ever be investigated even though ultimately all our Insurances carry a loading no doubt for uninsured motorists.
pheonix478 said:
The OP has already said he has his own car which he usually uses. Taking that at face value and assuming he's insured on it I'd have thought that would shut down any fronting 'investigation' pretty quickly.
The first check is always whether there is cover in place. That usually takes seconds obviously. What will take things to greater levels of scrutiny - beyond simple inconsistencies, revealed patterns that indicate fraud or spot checks will be the potential size of the claim. In the OP's case I think we have been told that we have a written off car driven by a named person with a (presumably declared) unspent criminal record on the insured's policy. We don't know the claims history of the insured or the named driver. We don't know whether business cover was in place and what the car was being used for when it was crashed. We don't know the extent of third party damage or injuries. We know the Police are involved. If you're even the first point of contact claims handler, you'll want answers and clarification. You certainly won't just rubber stamp the claim because a named driver on your insured's policy has declared an accident. Acuity30 said:
You've said nothing, nothing of substance to ignore other than 'personal details' and strange talks of interviews. Where did I say it's fine to front? I suggest you read my first post in this thread to remind yourself.
Your initial post first few words were “ Not an advocate of fronting but being realistic “ - the word but stands out to me at least. I’m sorry but if you cannot or will not try and understand my comments in response then I won’t waste any more of my time or yours. Clearly you don’t want to believe anything I’ve said which is obviously your prerogative.
We don’t actually know if the OP was even “ guilty “ of this.
Not sure why though talk of “ interviews “ is something you find so difficult to comprehend though especially if you worked for an Insurer.
But let’s just leave it there as clearly we are looking at this entirely differently.
Have a good evening.
Ken_Code said:
pheonix478 said:
So if you're out on license (aka on probation?) and you get arrested you get recalled to prison, correct? Then presumably at a (much?) later date there is a trial. What if you're found not guilty? 'Soz mate' and let you go? Is being involved in an accident really grounds for being recalled until there has been an investigation? I'm not questioning the OP's version of events, just wondering how it works.
You don’t need to have committed a crime to be recalled, so being found not guilty isn’t an issue in terms of the recall.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff