One Car, Multiple Insurance Policies

[Lee540]

Hi,

Is it legal to have one car insured by more than one insurance company?

My 17 year old sister-in-law passed her test today, we want to insure her VW Polo this evening, however, her Dad is currently insuring the car in his name and is over in USA and un-contactable till end of December.

Is it going to be an issue to insure the car tonight in her name and then when her Dad comes home, to cancel it off his multi-car policy then.

Thanks

Lee

[Denis O]

I believe it is fine to have as many policies you like covering a single car.

Where you will come unstuck is if you make a claim on more than 1 of those policies.

[xRIEx]

It's known as dual insurance and causes problems. Insurance companies don't like it because of the risk of fraud, e.g. claiming from two policies for one accident; policy wordings usually have something like, "covered unless another insurance policy is in place" which would usually result in each company paying half of a claim. The problem for the policyholder is each company would charge their full excess amount (if applicable) so you actually get less in those claim situations.

If an insurer really doesn't like it then they might cancel the policy and then (strictly speaking) the policyholder has to declare they've had insurance refused/cancelled in the past, most likely making it harder or more expensive to get insurance in the future.

[Lee540]

The multi-car policy doesn't give sister-in-law ability to drive the car, since she is on there as a learner.

Now she passed her test, we are taking out black box insurance with Tesco this evening in her own name.

The car will be registered though with MID under two policies.

I don't like it, but I can't call up the multi-car insurance company and remove the Polo without any authority.

Thanks for replies.

[xRIEx]

Lee540 said:

The multi-car policy doesn't give sister-in-law ability to drive the car, since she is on there as a learner.

Now she passed her test, we are taking out black box insurance with Tesco this evening in her own name.

The car will be registered though with MID under two policies.

I don't like it, but I can't call up the multi-car insurance company and remove the Polo without any authority.

Thanks for replies.

Option 1: Are her parents still married? Get her mum to contact the insurance company and remove the Polo from that policy. (Not sure if that would be sufficient authority, possibly.)

Option 2: Contact the insurer and advise of the change of licence status.

If the company will only take instruction from the policyholder then option 3: she doesn't drive it until the situation is sorted.

Edited by xRIEx on Tuesday 18th November 12:39

[Lee540]

xRIEx said:

Lee540 said:

The multi-car policy doesn't give sister-in-law ability to drive the car, since she is on there as a learner.

Now she passed her test, we are taking out black box insurance with Tesco this evening in her own name.

The car will be registered though with MID under two policies.

I don't like it, but I can't call up the multi-car insurance company and remove the Polo without any authority.

Thanks for replies.

Option 1: Are her parents still married? Get her mum to contact the insurance company and remove the Polo from that policy.

Option 2: Contact the insurer and advise of the change of licence status.

If the company will only take instruction from the policyholder then option 3: she doesn't drive it until the situation is sorted.

Thanks for response, making sense of things..

Option 1: Mum passed away last year, Dad disappeared to live mostly in America.

Option 2: I will try and contact Dad later to resolve.

Thinking that insuring one without un-insuring other is not ideal and its not fair to put sister-in-law in a bad position with insurance companies at 17! Its already expensive enough!

Edited by Lee540 on Tuesday 18th November 12:42

[xRIEx]

Lee540 said:

Thanks for response, making sense of things..

Option 1: Mum passed away last year, Dad disappeared to live mostly in America.

Option 2: I will try and contact Dad later to resolve.

Thinking that insuring one without un-insuring other is not ideal and its not fair to put sister-in-law in a bad position with insurance companies at 17! Its already expensive enough!

Edited by Lee540 on Tuesday 18th November 12:42

I would still suggest contacting the current insurer to explain the situation. As long as they're aware they may not have an issue with the second policy being taken out, and may even agree to backdate the removal of the polo to today when her dad is able to make the instruction - the new policy will have the cover dates as proof. Often if all parties are aware of what's going on they're able to accommodate.

[gshughes]

Surely they have 'phones in the States? Dad phones insurance co. from there = all sorted.

[Lee540]

gshughes said:

Surely they have 'phones in the States? Dad phones insurance co. from there = all sorted.

In an ideal world, it could be that simple!

[Pan Pan]

What I don't really get is why insurance companies want to insure the car, rather than the driver.
Of course the value of the car is going to have a bearing on the premium charged, but a new / inexperienced driver, is going to be new and inexperienced whether they are driving a trabant / VW Polo or Bugatti Veyron,
Of course they start to take notice if the driver is new and inexperienced (so they can load up the premiums for this type of driver to stratospheric levels) but since no one has really found a way for one driver to drive two different cars at one and the same time, why don't they just focus on the age and experience of the driver and insure `the driver'. This way provided the driver is operating a specific previously agreed class of vehicle, they will be covered by a basic minimum level of insurance commensurate with the premium deemed suitable for that particular driver.
I may be being cynical, but it seems they make / change the rules so that they can extract the maximum cash for any given situation.

[xRIEx]

Pan Pan said:

What I don't really get is why insurance companies want to insure the car, rather than the driver.
Of course the value of the car is going to have a bearing on the premium charged, but a new / inexperienced driver, is going to be new and inexperienced whether they are driving a trabant / VW Polo or Bugatti Veyron,
Of course they start to take notice if the driver is new and inexperienced (so they can load up the premiums for this type of driver to stratospheric levels) but since no one has really found a way for one driver to drive two different cars at one and the same time, why don't they just focus on the age and experience of the driver and insure `the driver'. This way provided the driver is operating a specific previously agreed class of vehicle, they will be covered by a basic minimum level of insurance commensurate with the premium deemed suitable for that particular driver.
I may be being cynical, but it seems they make / change the rules so that they can extract the maximum cash for any given situation.

For a start, they don't "insure the car rather than the driver," they insure a risk (or a combination of risks).

Secondly, once a driver gets out of a car it doesn't evaporate into the air until the next time it is needed - it still exists and may be stolen (and then involved in injuring or killing someone), catch fire, attacked by a mob, be struck by lightning, flooded (in the water sense, not engine filled with too much petrol sense), hit by bits falling off planes, set on fire, etc. etc.

[rivercatch]

Pan Pan said:

What I don't really get is why insurance companies want to insure the car, rather than the driver.
Of course the value of the car is going to have a bearing on the premium charged, but a new / inexperienced driver, is going to be new and inexperienced whether they are driving a trabant / VW Polo or Bugatti Veyron,
Of course they start to take notice if the driver is new and inexperienced (so they can load up the premiums for this type of driver to stratospheric levels) but since no one has really found a way for one driver to drive two different cars at one and the same time, why don't they just focus on the age and experience of the driver and insure `the driver'. This way provided the driver is operating a specific previously agreed class of vehicle, they will be covered by a basic minimum level of insurance commensurate with the premium deemed suitable for that particular driver.
I may be being cynical, but it seems they make / change the rules so that they can extract the maximum cash for any given situation.

^^This

I guess it's because we are in that great British tradition of mixing it up and having wonderful system that is so good it is a constant surprise that no-one else copies it. We insure drivers, but to ensure that victims of un-insured drivers are compensated, the insurance company must cover the car as well. Also enforcement of the need for insurance can only be automated at the vehicle level not the driver. Current system is good for single driver with multiple cars and poor for single car with multiple drivers.

I like the Aussie system also used in various countries. Owner must insure the car, CTP - Compulsory Third Party - paid before you register. Variable excesses apply by age. Additional insurance as you want on top of that. The car has (or had) a sticker for the CTP.

In the UK it means you would pay the VED and CTP equivalent, and get MOT if needed, at the same time. It would be much easier to enforce as well. Also better for victims of accidents.