Two policies from different companies on same car
Discussion
Of course it is possible although illegal, I've had that for over a year when b
ds from Express Insurance didn't want to cancel my policy. I've even told them that I already have another policy in place and they make it illegal, nobody cared.
When you'll phone IC up, they will never ask is the car insured by anyone else. When they add the vehicle to the MID it won't show up as an error either.
ds from Express Insurance didn't want to cancel my policy. I've even told them that I already have another policy in place and they make it illegal, nobody cared.When you'll phone IC up, they will never ask is the car insured by anyone else. When they add the vehicle to the MID it won't show up as an error either.
Why would it be illegal? Genuine question by the way.
As long as you are only using your own NCB on one policy at a time and only one person claimed in the event of an accident?
Where you may fall down however is that some insurers don't like to insure you for a car you don't own (ie a friends or parents) as I found out when I wanted to borrow someone's car for three months.
As long as you are only using your own NCB on one policy at a time and only one person claimed in the event of an accident?
Where you may fall down however is that some insurers don't like to insure you for a car you don't own (ie a friends or parents) as I found out when I wanted to borrow someone's car for three months.
Edited by Leeds220 on Monday 19th September 18:17
AFAIK Claiming on 2 different policies for the same crashed/stolen/damaged car is illegal.
Actually having 2 policies isn't illegal as such (afaik)
It's like having your bike insured under the house insurance and also in seperate insurance.
Well - not really, but you see what I mean.
I think it is illegal to try and build up your no claims by being insured on a car you don't drive.
It's not Fronting I think, but something like that.
It's probably fraud in some way.
There is a ray of hope though.
Some insureres will offer you a NCB if you can prove you were a named driver on a policy for a while.
Actually having 2 policies isn't illegal as such (afaik)
It's like having your bike insured under the house insurance and also in seperate insurance.
Well - not really, but you see what I mean.
I think it is illegal to try and build up your no claims by being insured on a car you don't drive.
It's not Fronting I think, but something like that.
It's probably fraud in some way.
There is a ray of hope though.
Some insureres will offer you a NCB if you can prove you were a named driver on a policy for a while.
marshalla said:
rottie102 said:
Of course it is possible although illegal,
I keep seeing this fact posted, but can't find the applicable legislation - can anyone direct us to it ? http://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/insurance_...
http://www.lexico.co.uk/insurance/ins_understandin...
article said:
“Insurable interest” is the legal right to insure. Without it, an insurance policy is invalid.
Three criteria for insurable interest must be met:
1. There must be something capable of being insured – i.e. property, a right, a commercial interest, a life or a limb, or some potential liability.
2. This property (etc) must be the “subject matter” of the insurance.
3. The insured party must have a certain relationship to the “subject matter”.
· The relationship must be legally recognised.
· The insured party must benefit from the safety of the subject matter (or from freedom from liabilities).
· The insured party must be prejudiced by the subject matter’s loss, damage, delay, injury or creation of liability.
If any of these relationship criteria is unmet, the risk can not be insured. You cannot, therefore, insure someone else’s vessel against sinking, nominating yourself to receive compensation.
Three criteria for insurable interest must be met:
1. There must be something capable of being insured – i.e. property, a right, a commercial interest, a life or a limb, or some potential liability.
2. This property (etc) must be the “subject matter” of the insurance.
3. The insured party must have a certain relationship to the “subject matter”.
· The relationship must be legally recognised.
· The insured party must benefit from the safety of the subject matter (or from freedom from liabilities).
· The insured party must be prejudiced by the subject matter’s loss, damage, delay, injury or creation of liability.
If any of these relationship criteria is unmet, the risk can not be insured. You cannot, therefore, insure someone else’s vessel against sinking, nominating yourself to receive compensation.
I understand the point you are making Zwoelf but if I'm borrowing somebody else's "vessel" the surely I would meet the relationship criteria? I want to protect myself from any possible loss so that I can recompense the owner.
Eta - although for the relationship to be recognised I guess there would need to be a written agreement of some kind?
Eta - although for the relationship to be recognised I guess there would need to be a written agreement of some kind?
Edited by Leeds220 on Monday 19th September 18:36
I tried to get insurance on MIL's car when we wanted to borrow it while wifey was between cars.
I assumed I'd be able to transfer wife's suspended policy but they said no, MIL's own insurer wouldn't issue a separate policy and I tried a couple of others who said no too - all gave the same reason; that we couldn't insure something we didn't own. This seems like bks to me - people insure lease cars etc.
There's not normally anything illegal in insuring something twice - it just gets a bit complicated if there's a claim as they may share liability.
I assumed I'd be able to transfer wife's suspended policy but they said no, MIL's own insurer wouldn't issue a separate policy and I tried a couple of others who said no too - all gave the same reason; that we couldn't insure something we didn't own. This seems like b
ks to me - people insure lease cars etc.There's not normally anything illegal in insuring something twice - it just gets a bit complicated if there's a claim as they may share liability.
Zwoelf, those links don't show it as illegal at all.
If you wish to drive somebody elses car, then by definition you have a relationship to it - you are driving it. You are therefore insuring yourself against the risks to third parties and yourself if you crash it. Any payout after it being written off would go to its owner, not you, so its nothing like insuring a vessel you don't own against sinking so you can receive the payout.
The legislation you've quoted explains that I cannot insure your car, for example. Because you are not going to let me drive it, and its nothing to do with me. I suffer zero loss and have no relationship if you crash it or if somebody steals it, so I cannot insure it.
If you wish to drive somebody elses car, then by definition you have a relationship to it - you are driving it. You are therefore insuring yourself against the risks to third parties and yourself if you crash it. Any payout after it being written off would go to its owner, not you, so its nothing like insuring a vessel you don't own against sinking so you can receive the payout.
The legislation you've quoted explains that I cannot insure your car, for example. Because you are not going to let me drive it, and its nothing to do with me. I suffer zero loss and have no relationship if you crash it or if somebody steals it, so I cannot insure it.
Fox- said:
If you wish to drive somebody elses car, then by definition you have a relationship to it - you are driving it. You are therefore insuring yourself against the risks to third parties and yourself if you crash it. Any payout after it being written off would go to its owner, not you, so its nothing like insuring a vessel you don't own against sinking so you can receive the payout.
The legislation you've quoted explains that I cannot insure your car, for example. Because you are not going to let me drive it, and its nothing to do with me. I suffer zero loss and have no relationship if you crash it or if somebody steals it, so I cannot insure it.
You'd be covered under my policy because you'd be driving with my permission to do so (and if you were driving my car without my permission, you wouldn't be insured at all as you would be in the process of committing a crime), so there's no requirement for you to have any. It's exactly like that as you're insuring a vessel (i.e. the car) you don't own (because I do) against sinking (crashing) so you can receive a payout. You still have no insurable interest, that is still mine as he car remains my property. For longer term use, you would add yourself to my existing policy, or your own insurance on your own vehicles would cover you to drive other people's vehicles with their permission to do so. The legislation you've quoted explains that I cannot insure your car, for example. Because you are not going to let me drive it, and its nothing to do with me. I suffer zero loss and have no relationship if you crash it or if somebody steals it, so I cannot insure it.
The links show that you could theoretically have any number of policies against an asset, however each of them could claim their policy is invalid and simply refund the premium in the event of a claim. If all the insurers covering an asset do that, you're potentially quite stuffed. Alternatively, the principle of "contribution" all the insurers could reach an agreed proportion of any settlement resulting from a claim.
Zwoelf said:
marshalla said:
rottie102 said:
Of course it is possible although illegal,
I keep seeing this fact posted, but can't find the applicable legislation - can anyone direct us to it ? http://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/insurance_...
http://www.lexico.co.uk/insurance/ins_understandin...
article said:
“Insurable interest” is the legal right to insure. Without it, an insurance policy is invalid.
<snip>
<snip>
I'd assume that if there was no insurable interest, the underwriter would simply decline to pay. Whereas were it illegal, someone would be running the risk of prosecution?
LooneyTunes said:
There's a difference though between a second policy being invalid policy vs. illegal, no?
Indeed, which is what the links say. The problem being that if they are all invalid, then you are driving without insurance, which is illegal. When you are purchasing cover, it is your responsibility to disclose any and all material facts which may affect an insurer's decision to cover (not theirs to ask). Another policy being current on the vehicle is such a material fact to be disclosed.
Zwoelf said:
The problem being that if they are all invalid, then you are driving without insurance, which is illegal.
That assumes you're driving the vehicle! 
So... the pedants outcome is:
Not illegal to have multiple insurance policies; but
If you have no insurable interest the policy will be invalid; so
If you then drive the vehicle you are doing so illegally.
?
...and you'd be running the gauntlet of having insurance cancelled, which would then potentially cause difficulties later.
With the law as it is Insurers have to update the MID within 14 days of a vehicle being insured or renewed. If it is already insured it will usually flag up and your insurer will write asking the reason for this. This also prevents people trying to insure "cloned cars". Two main questions that are asked when taking out a insurance policy are "Who is the registered keeper" and "who is the owner of the vehicle". Occasionly insures do allow you to insure your parents car but they are few and far between. Hence making it nearly inpossible for little Billy to insure his dads car without him knowing when he is on holiday or away for the weekend.
Also you will have a headache trying to claim if the vehicle is ever stolen.
Not saying that its impossible for you to get away with it but when you come to need to make a claim you dont want to make it even harder to get a claim paid out.
If I was you I would probably look into buying a cheap 1.1 with a years ticket. Insuring it for a year but leave it on the drive and then get insured as a named driver on your parents policy aswell. Will probably work out cheaper.
Also you will have a headache trying to claim if the vehicle is ever stolen.
Not saying that its impossible for you to get away with it but when you come to need to make a claim you dont want to make it even harder to get a claim paid out.
If I was you I would probably look into buying a cheap 1.1 with a years ticket. Insuring it for a year but leave it on the drive and then get insured as a named driver on your parents policy aswell. Will probably work out cheaper.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff