Named driver crash my car - I have no details of what happen
Discussion
Who is the car registered to? Hopefully to yourself to support that it is your car and your brother occassionally uses as a named driver. Where is the car in relation to you? Miles away or local? What have the police said in relation to the accident? Ok they said no other car was involved but are they suggesting an investigation is happening or is it just a simple misjudgement and he has gone off the road.
Just think about these things before you ring your insurers so that you can answer questions with confidence and not answer the ones you can't. Don't lie. Remember whatever happens from here on will affect your own ability to get insuance in the future IF you're found to be decieving the insurers. You are going to have to ring them and report it though. Even if they don't pay out on the car you may have a claim against you for property i.e maybe he took out a fence or road fixture etc.
Just think about these things before you ring your insurers so that you can answer questions with confidence and not answer the ones you can't. Don't lie. Remember whatever happens from here on will affect your own ability to get insuance in the future IF you're found to be decieving the insurers. You are going to have to ring them and report it though. Even if they don't pay out on the car you may have a claim against you for property i.e maybe he took out a fence or road fixture etc.
Pit Pony said:
justamumof3 said:
Pit Pony said:
Given how difficult it is for people with unspent criminal convictions to obtain insurance, my caution about your insurance company looking at the future claim, in great detail, is even more pertinent.
Ok. I can’t even remember them asking this question I reckon 150 quotes at least. ALWAYS asked about None motoring convictions for all drivers.
OP, I hope your brother is okay? You would have thought he might have called you before being arrested at the scene? Probably the first thing I would have done if I had crashed someone's car, but obviously everyone is different.
Either a call to your insurers or could you visit the police station with a mobile phone to call from there.
Best of luck
Either a call to your insurers or could you visit the police station with a mobile phone to call from there.
Best of luck
justamumof3 said:
Vtekkers said:
Just call your insurance and tell them what you know, you dont need to know everything just be honest and let them deal with whatever they have to
Thank you. I will The issue of 'fronting' was raised earlier, your brother is a named driver but who is the main driver of the vehicle, if it isn't the person who uses it the most then this can be considered fronting.
IMHO Best case is the insurer doesn't pay out your loss, worst-case is that plus your insurance risk takes a dive and you have trouble getting insurance.
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.
Thank you for explaining. The car was mainly used by myself but my brother would use it every now and again. He has another car (no on this insurance) which he used. I don’t know how I would proved this but I’ll suppose I just have to wait till it comes to that point. 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.
justamumof3 said:
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.
Thank you for explaining. The car was mainly used by myself but my brother would use it every now and again. He has another car (no on this insurance) which he used. I don’t know how I would proved this but I’ll suppose I just have to wait till it comes to that point. 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.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
Schoolboy error, everyone knows that if you have a crash then you should immediately do a runner. If the police suspect you then just say "No comment" to everything and they have to let you go.
Goes double if you are a promising footballer.
Someone asks for help and all you can do is take the piss? What a big and clever person you are.Goes double if you are a promising footballer.
You're an asshole and not the least bit funny.
mubariz said:
Unreal said:
justamumof3 said:
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.
Thank you for explaining. The car was mainly used by myself but my brother would use it every now and again. He has another car (no on this insurance) which he used. I don’t know how I would proved this but I’ll suppose I just have to wait till it comes to that point. 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.
JQ said:
Pit Pony said:
justamumof3 said:
Pit Pony said:
Given how difficult it is for people with unspent criminal convictions to obtain insurance, my caution about your insurance company looking at the future claim, in great detail, is even more pertinent.
Ok. I can’t even remember them asking this question I reckon 150 quotes at least. ALWAYS asked about None motoring convictions for all drivers.
Just think about it for a second, do you think an insurer would want to load the premium of someone with multiple convictions of fraud, or just charge them the same as Mrs Miggins with no convictions?
I'm always asked if I or any named drivers have any non-motoring convictions that are not considered spent.
This is in addition to the question about motoring convictions on the past 5 years.
justamumof3 said:
Thank you for explaining. The car was mainly used by myself but my brother would use it every now and again. He has another car (no on this insurance) which he used. I don’t know how I would proved this but I’ll suppose I just have to wait till it comes to that point.
Why was he using your car if he has his own? If he does indeed have his own car and he can show he's insured to use it, IMO, your insurance would have no reason to suspect he was the main driver on your car. He does have insurance for his car right?Hilts said:
Pit Pony said:
justamumof3 said:
Pit Pony said:
Given how difficult it is for people with unspent criminal convictions to obtain insurance, my caution about your insurance company looking at the future claim, in great detail, is even more pertinent.
Ok. I can’t even remember them asking this question I reckon 150 quotes at least. ALWAYS asked about None motoring convictions for all drivers.
Cryssys said:
BrettMRC said:
Is the named driver a young musician or up and coming footballer?
Someone calling themselves Brett turns out to be an a
hole. Why am I not surprised?pheonix478 said:
lancslad58 said:
Reads more like an AI bot to me.
Write a short story about car insurance with more loose ends than the AVN Awards, in the style of an eight year old.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff