Policy Holder Not Living At Address - Payout possibly denied
Discussion
Thoughts on the following please, it's a new one to me:
• Step-son buys first car while learning, plan is for an adult to go out with him a few times to help him regain the familiarity of driving after taking a break from lessons.
• His girlfriend is down as the main policy holder as she has a few years NQB and he is a named driver. Car is registered in his name at his address and that's where the car is stored/parked etc. Girlfriend doesn't live there.
• While out driving with an adult (me) he writes the car off. He misjudged a gap between a moving vehicle and a parked car, braked too late and hit the parked car. His car came off worse, insurance all but confirmed over the phone that it would be written off after seeing photos.
• Insurance is now saying they are going to refer to the underwriters as the policy holder didn't live at the same address that the car was registered too. She was in the early stages of moving in but at that point there was nothing with her name on showing the same address. They have subsequently split up.
Is there any point in fighting their possible rejection of the claim for his car? The third party isn't affected; the policy was fully comp. Thanks.
• Step-son buys first car while learning, plan is for an adult to go out with him a few times to help him regain the familiarity of driving after taking a break from lessons.
• His girlfriend is down as the main policy holder as she has a few years NQB and he is a named driver. Car is registered in his name at his address and that's where the car is stored/parked etc. Girlfriend doesn't live there.
• While out driving with an adult (me) he writes the car off. He misjudged a gap between a moving vehicle and a parked car, braked too late and hit the parked car. His car came off worse, insurance all but confirmed over the phone that it would be written off after seeing photos.
• Insurance is now saying they are going to refer to the underwriters as the policy holder didn't live at the same address that the car was registered too. She was in the early stages of moving in but at that point there was nothing with her name on showing the same address. They have subsequently split up.
Is there any point in fighting their possible rejection of the claim for his car? The third party isn't affected; the policy was fully comp. Thanks.
username_checksout said:
Thoughts on the following please, it's a new one to me:
Step-son buys first car while learning, plan is for an adult to go out with him a few times to help him regain the familiarity of driving after taking a break from lessons.
His girlfriend is down as the main policy holder as she has a few years NQB and he is a named driver. Car is registered in his name at his address and that's where the car is stored/parked etc. Girlfriend doesn't live there.
While out driving with an adult (me) he writes the car off. He misjudged a gap between a moving vehicle and a parked car, braked too late and hit the parked car. His car came off worse, insurance all but confirmed over the phone that it would be written off after seeing photos.
Insurance is now saying they are going to refer to the underwriters as the policy holder didn't live at the same address that the car was registered too. She was in the early stages of moving in but at that point there was nothing with her name on showing the same address. They have subsequently split up.
Is there any point in fighting their possible rejection of the claim for his car? The third party isn't affected; the policy was fully comp. Thanks.
Looks like a fronting setup.Step-son buys first car while learning, plan is for an adult to go out with him a few times to help him regain the familiarity of driving after taking a break from lessons.
His girlfriend is down as the main policy holder as she has a few years NQB and he is a named driver. Car is registered in his name at his address and that's where the car is stored/parked etc. Girlfriend doesn't live there.
While out driving with an adult (me) he writes the car off. He misjudged a gap between a moving vehicle and a parked car, braked too late and hit the parked car. His car came off worse, insurance all but confirmed over the phone that it would be written off after seeing photos.
Insurance is now saying they are going to refer to the underwriters as the policy holder didn't live at the same address that the car was registered too. She was in the early stages of moving in but at that point there was nothing with her name on showing the same address. They have subsequently split up.
Is there any point in fighting their possible rejection of the claim for his car? The third party isn't affected; the policy was fully comp. Thanks.
Was the girlfriend aware, as she might be in some trouble as well, as the policyholder.
So - keeping things simple and just calling them Male & Female, this is as I understand it:
Male buys car & registers it at his address and is going to be the main driver.
Female insures it because she has more NCB but lives at a different address, Male is a named driver.
Male has an RTC.
Insurance company now has an issue about the address, which will probably transpire into an issue about who was actually the main driver under the policy given that the Male and Female are no longer together and Female never lived at the RKs address.
I suspect the Insurance Company will win this argument as a fairly obvious example of Fronting.
Male buys car & registers it at his address and is going to be the main driver.
Female insures it because she has more NCB but lives at a different address, Male is a named driver.
Male has an RTC.
Insurance company now has an issue about the address, which will probably transpire into an issue about who was actually the main driver under the policy given that the Male and Female are no longer together and Female never lived at the RKs address.
I suspect the Insurance Company will win this argument as a fairly obvious example of Fronting.
Mandat said:
Looks like a fronting setup.
Was the girlfriend aware, as she might be in some trouble as well, as the policyholder.
It was all done as openly as they possibly could; the insurance company was told she was the policy holder and he was a named driver with a provisional license. They had the material facts from the start.Was the girlfriend aware, as she might be in some trouble as well, as the policyholder.
He couldn't drive the car unless somebody aged 21+ with a full license was with him, and he never did. He drove it twice in the one month he had the car.
He and his girlfriend went out together in it a few times with her driving, she was fully aware of the policy and both complied with all the questions being asked as part of taking out the policy. She did drive the car more than he did. If you want to distill time behind the wheel to determine who the main driver was, it was her.
It clearly didn't cross anybodies mind as to how it might look, hence the two people on the policy being specifically named (him and her). There was no subterfuge.
I thought that him being named on the V5 and the car being maintained at the same address as the V5 and the policy also being registered at the same address as both the above would prove legitimacy. Both her and him were insured as named drivers, so why does it matter who had the accident?
Edited by username_checksout on Thursday 3rd September 22:24
Edited by username_checksout on Thursday 3rd September 22:27
Super Sonic said:
What matters is who was named as the main driver, and who was actually the main driver.
She was, in both instances. She used the car the most in time they had it, him as a passenger. He drove it twice; once with his mum / my wife, once with me.Edited by Super Sonic on Thursday 3rd September 22:29
Super Sonic said:
Yet it was registered in his name and kept at his address?
Yes. It was his car. She was planning to move in from where she lives with her parents (10 mins down the road) and use it to commute to the nearby city where she worked instead of catching the train / bus every day.She was then offered a teaching job in the town where she lives, so moving plans were put on hold while she focussed on the interviews for this new position.
I'll see if I can get a copy of their policy to see precisely who was named as what. Point being, she used the car more than he did in the time they had it, which I would argue does make her the main driver. He could not drive it unless he had a suitably qualified passenger, hence why he only drove it twice.
Together, with her driving, they made about 5 trips in it. Him - just two. One successful, the other less so.
I’m also wondering if ‘fronting’ can actually apply when a provisional driver (of a car) is the owner of the vehicle as he can’t go out in it on his own anyway?
I suppose if the address was much cheaper to insure for than that of the girlfriend it might have some bearing on the situation, but it sounds like the insurer was informed of the address where the vehicle was kept?
I suppose if the address was much cheaper to insure for than that of the girlfriend it might have some bearing on the situation, but it sounds like the insurer was informed of the address where the vehicle was kept?
Leptons said:
I can t see that anyone s done anything wrong there.
It s more likely they ve got the hump because of a policy exclusion that says the car must be registered to the policy holder at their home address.
If that was the case, when they were told the car was not kept at the policy holders address, and not registered to them, they would have declined cover.It s more likely they ve got the hump because of a policy exclusion that says the car must be registered to the policy holder at their home address.
RSTurboPaul said:
Does it matter where the policy holder lives, if the vehicle is kept at the stated location and driven by the named drivers?
When my daughter, who lives elsewhere, got an EV I kept hold of her old car as a "spare". I wanted her to stay as RK as she'd owned from new and it had a year to run of a service and maint package in her name.None of the mainstream insurers I tried would let me be policyholder with the car kept at my address. A broker seemed to think it'd be fine, but the came back and said it wasn't - he'd got a quote but it was more than 2x the cost than if I was RK.
Sheepshanks said:
When my daughter, who lives elsewhere, got an EV I kept hold of her old car as a "spare". I wanted her to stay as RK as she'd owned from new and it had a year to run of a service and maint package in her name.
None of the mainstream insurers I tried would let me be policyholder with the car kept at my address. A broker seemed to think it'd be fine, but the came back and said it wasn't - he'd got a quote but it was more than 2x the cost than if I was RK.
But the insurers here knew the car wasn't kept at the policyholders address, or registered in her name, but still provided cover.None of the mainstream insurers I tried would let me be policyholder with the car kept at my address. A broker seemed to think it'd be fine, but the came back and said it wasn't - he'd got a quote but it was more than 2x the cost than if I was RK.
Solocle said:
On my insurance renewal, there's a section like this.
Check your documents. If it's been declared which address the vehicle is kept at, then everything should be in order, as it sounds like she is indeed the main driver.
From the opCheck your documents. If it's been declared which address the vehicle is kept at, then everything should be in order, as it sounds like she is indeed the main driver.
"Insurance is now saying they are going to refer to the underwriters as the policy holder didn't live at the same address that the car was registered too."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff