Insurance - named driver quandary

[theboss]

Rather complex situation as follows. I was wondering if anyone had faced a similar scenario or could offer an industry insight.

Two cars insured, both mine (albeit one leased) on a single multi-car policy in my name. Several named drivers on both. The leased car (Golf R, of course) is used by my mother regularly because she needed use of a vehicle and to all intents and purposes it was spare. Insurer was fully aware of this.

My mother drives the car to my brother's house, who is also a named driver, and promptly leaves the country. My brother's house is a convenient location for the airport and I intend to collect the car from there in the following days. It turns out my mother parked the car on the road and my brother moved it onto his driveway shortly after.

Whilst it is parked on the driveway my brother's house is broken into and the car stolen.

I claim, insurer settles everything perfectly with lease company and I forget about it until renewal.

(Incidentally the car is recovered a month later so the insurer re-coups some of the loss).

During the claim I initially reported my mother was the last user of the car, but as it came to light that my brother had moved it from road to driveway, I passed this information on and the insurer contacted him to confirm that, to the best of his recollection, it was locked and secure when parked.

Now at renewal, the insurer is recording the theft claim in my mother's name. I noticed this as an anomaly and contacted them to correct it, expecting a further loading of my premium, but they have confirmed they record theft claims in the name of the person who last had possession of the car, and that that named driver would also be obliged to report the same to their own insurers.

It's been escalated as I can't see how this is right, and they acknowledge that its a rather unusual situation, so I will have a further response in the next few days. Just wanted to put it out there for any further insights.

[zygalski]

2 fault claims.
1 against you on your policy as the PH, and one against the last user of the vehicle as ND against their policy.
Having named drivers is nice and convenient and everything, until a fault/non-recoverable claim comes along, involving a ND.

[theboss]

zygalski said:

2 fault claims.
1 against you on your policy as the PH, and one against the last user of the vehicle as ND against their policy.
Having named drivers is nice and convenient and everything, until a fault/non-recoverable claim comes along, involving a ND.

What I don't understand is how the theft 'involved' the last user in any way that would result in them having to diclose it to their own insurer. They parked the car where I instructed them to, left the keys in the home of the other ND and the theft took place 24+ hours later. My car, my insurance, my claim.

Does this mean that if a named driver uses your car, hands it back and it gets stolen several days later before you've had any reason to drive it, that they are involved in some way? It's obvious how they would be 'involved' in a non-fault accident whilst using the car as ND, and have to report that, but a theft days after they happened to be the last user just seems bizarre.

It seems very unclear. I can't find anything directly relevant online.

[anonymous-user]

It's disclosable in the same way it would be if they had an accident.

If they have insurance of their own it doesn't affect their NCD, it's just a disclosable incident.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it

Edit: strictly speaking it should be against your brother.

[theboss]

desolate said:

It's disclosable in the same way it would be if they had an accident.

If they have insurance of their own it doesn't affect their NCD, it's just a disclosable incident.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it

Edit: strictly speaking it should be against your brother.

I realise it won’t affect their NCD but it will probably affect their premium and even more importantly they are at risk of falling foul of insurers by failing to disclose it because it’s not obvious that it should be disclosed.

I wouldn’t suppose for a moment that if I borrowed somebodies car as a ND and then it was stolen a few days later, that I was involved in any way. It certainly wouldn’t occur to me that I was obliged to disclose this to my own insurers.

[anonymous-user]

theboss said:

I realise it won’t affect their NCD but it will probably affect their premium and even more importantly they are at risk of falling foul of insurers by failing to disclose it because it’s not obvious that it should be disclosed.

I wouldn’t suppose for a moment that if I borrowed somebodies car as a ND and then it was stolen a few days later, that I was involved in any way. It certainly wouldn’t occur to me that I was obliged to disclose this to my own insurers.

It's disclosable in the same way that you had to disclose who was the last driver of the vehicle.

It's just the way it is.

If they don't disclose and it's a genuine error then there will be no penalty for the inadvertent non disclosure.

[ashleyman]

Wouldn't it be your brother and you who should be declaring it - you as it's your car + policy, him the last driver.

Your mother shouldn't be involved at all as she wasn't the last user before theft.

[theboss]

ashleyman said:

Wouldn't it be your brother and you who should be declaring it - you as it's your car + policy, him the last driver.

Your mother shouldn't be involved at all as she wasn't the last user before theft.

Yes it would appear so... though as stated he just moved it 30ft from road to driveway. This was only known to me after the initial details of the claim were logged immediately after the theft was reported to the police. The insurer spoke to my brother when I made this known to them, but the conversation went along the lines of confirming the car was left locked with windows closed (which of course was the case).

Perhaps the insurer overlooked this quick use and considered my mum to be the last user for this purpose.

It should become clearer when they get back to me next week. Because my policy was expiring this evening, the insurer has renewed the policy as-is without taking payment assuring me I can remain covered whilst we sort the details out next week.

[anonymous-user]

Maybe be best to leave sleeping dogs lie, unless your mum pays more in insurance than your brother.

[silverfoxcc]

The person driving a car could be one of these definitions

Owner... the person who owns the car...need not be the registered Keeper

Registered Keeper The person named on the V5

Keeper the person who was in possession legally of the car at a specific time ie anyone who is either named on the insurance as allowed to drive it OR someone driving in under their insurance

So i own a car by paying for it and the receipt is in my name Owner
My son has it as his main car and is his name os on the V5 RK
His wife can drive it technically the keeper whilst in her 'possession'

[grumpy52]

Is the confusion caused by the wording , who drove it as opposed to whose care it was in ?

[theboss]

grumpy52 said:

Is the confusion caused by the wording , who drove it as opposed to whose care it was in ?

No, it’s definitely the “last user” who seems to be involved in the incident in terms of ongoing disclosure. It would be hard to say whose possession it was in, when it was parked at a place I had designated and had free access to, along with at least one other named driver who had my permission to use the car.

[dacouch]

Is your brother covered under the policy to drive the vehicle that was stolen?

[anonymous-user]

dacouch said:

Is your brother covered under the policy to drive the vehicle that was stolen?

According the the OP yes.

[theboss]

This has resolved.

The insurer decided that the car had returned to being in my possession at the time it was stolen and that no named drivers need to be connected with the incident.

[zygalski]

That is a result. Well done!

[Yegap]

Wanted to drag this up mainly because I want to know if there is any point in fighting my insurer or if it's a losing battle.

I'm named driver on my wife's policy. Our car was stolen from outside our house. As I've declared to the insurance company that I was the last person to drive the car before it was stolen, I'm now also liable to declare the claim on my insurance, as well as my wife who is the policy holder.

I've seen the comment above about the car being back in the possession of the policy holder and agreeing that the claim would only impact them.

I've tried to argue as such with my insurer, but their initial response is computer says no. Is there any point in pursuing or does anyone have any advice?

Thanks!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Yegap said:

Wanted to drag this up mainly because I want to know if there is any point in fighting my insurer or if it's a losing battle.

I'm named driver on my wife's policy. Our car was stolen from outside our house. As I've declared to the insurance company that I was the last person to drive the car before it was stolen, I'm now also liable to declare the claim on my insurance, as well as my wife who is the policy holder.

I've seen the comment above about the car being back in the possession of the policy holder and agreeing that the claim would only impact them.

I've tried to argue as such with my insurer, but their initial response is computer says no. Is there any point in pursuing or does anyone have any advice?

Thanks!

Your case is the industry standard, the OP's case is the exception. So no, no point in fighting it. The person who last drove the car is deemed to be the person in charge at the time of the incident, be it fire, theft, vandalism, etc.

[Yegap]

Cool - thank you!

[Pica-Pica]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yegap said:

Wanted to drag this up mainly because I want to know if there is any point in fighting my insurer or if it's a losing battle.

I'm named driver on my wife's policy. Our car was stolen from outside our house. As I've declared to the insurance company that I was the last person to drive the car before it was stolen, I'm now also liable to declare the claim on my insurance, as well as my wife who is the policy holder.

I've seen the comment above about the car being back in the possession of the policy holder and agreeing that the claim would only impact them.

I've tried to argue as such with my insurer, but their initial response is computer says no. Is there any point in pursuing or does anyone have any advice?

Thanks!

Your case is the industry standard, the OP's case is the exception. So no, no point in fighting it. The person who last drove the car is deemed to be the person in charge at the time of the incident, be it fire, theft, vandalism, etc.

To avoid that issue, and assuming she was at home at the time, could not your wife have ‘checked the car’ once you had parked it? (Check as in; ‘go and see it’s parked correctly’, or ‘opened the car door to check for something left in the car’). That to me would solve any of these issues of who was ‘last in charge of the car’.