Car insurance - additional driver without their consent
Scion
When shopping for insurance quotes on the many comparison websites it is of
course possible to add named drivers. In many instances this will bring down
the quote - in my case, despite me having a long claim-free insurance
history, my premium goes down when I add a second driver who has had two
at-fault claims totalling several thousand pounds in the space of two years.
So what is to stop someone adding another driver to their quote in order to
attempt to reduce the premium, without telling the other driver? e.g.
Someone I know could add me to their policy without my knowledge. I could
see this causing problems if I had to claim, and the insurance database
shows me as insured on more than one car when I have told the insurer that I
am only insured on my car.
If I discovered that I was insured on another car, would I be able to remove
myself from that insurance? After all, I have no contract with the insurer.
Thanks.
Neil Williams
> If I discovered that I was insured on another car, would I be able to remove
> myself from that insurance? After all, I have no contract with the insurer.
I doubt this would be an issue, as normally being insured on another
vehicle *reduces* the risk and thus the premium, the theory being that
when driving the other vehicle you're not driving your main one. In a
way it's like I answered "driveway" to "where is your vehicle parked
overnight". I sometimes park in the garage, but mostly not, so I chose
the higher risk option after checking with the insurer (as "sometimes
in the garage but mostly on the driveway" wasn't a choice). But in
this case your position is strengthened as you didn't do it!
The issue is likely to arise to the person who fraudulently added you
to their insurance, as it may well be the case that their policy could
get cancelled or voided if it is found to be incorrect.
Neil
David McNeish
>
> The issue is likely to arise to the person who fraudulently added you
> to their insurance, as it may well be the case that their policy could
> get cancelled or voided if it is found to be incorrect.
I don't see what would be fraudulent or "incorrect" about it - the
other person is insured to drive your car, whether they will happen to
do so during the period of insurance isn't something that anyone can
reliably predict.
Scion
That is exactly the point - it seems to me that Person A can add Person B to
their insurance, whether or not Person B agrees (or even knows about it).
Neil Williams
> That is exactly the point - it seems to me that Person A can add Person B to
> their insurance, whether or not Person B agrees (or even knows about it).
But as I explained it isn't an issue, because from the point of view
of your insurers it actually reduces risk so you're "paying too much"
- same thing as the fact that mine says "parked on the driveway" when
I sometimes park in the garage but mostly on the driveway. (You can't
put both, so you put the higher risk option - if you ask them this is
what they'll tell you).
If you're really unsure, phone them with a generic enquiry and don't
give your policy number.
Neil
Neil Williams
> I don't see what would be fraudulent or "incorrect" about it - the
> other person is insured to drive your car, whether they will happen to
> do so during the period of insurance isn't something that anyone can
> reliably predict.
There is that. But if you had no knowledge of this it could be
considered fraudulent, perhaps? But again, only on their side.
Neil
Simon Finnigan
"Neil Williams" wrote in message
news:a0f18a3a-c2f1-4903...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> There is that. But if you had no knowledge of this it could be
> considered fraudulent, perhaps? But again, only on their side.
Why would it be fraudulent for me to insure you to drive my car - I don`t
believe when doing so I`d be stating that you WOULD drive my car, or even
that I know you or have ever met you. All I`m saying is that i`d like
insurance for you to drive my car. When I put my wife on my policy she
doesn`t have to give her permission.
Percy Picacity
news:8nco0...@mid.individual.net:
> "Neil Williams" wrote in message
> news:a0f18a3a-c2f1-4903-9806-45be5e5efeb0
@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.
> com...
>
>> There is that. But if you had no knowledge of this it could be
>> considered fraudulent, perhaps? But again, only on their side.
>
> Why would it be fraudulent for me to insure you to drive my car -
> I don`t believe when doing so I`d be stating that you WOULD drive
> my car, or even that I know you or have ever met you. All I`m
> saying is that i`d like insurance for you to drive my car. When I
> put my wife on my policy she doesn`t have to give her permission.
>
>
I am not sure if fraudulent implies a crime. It may not be fraud in
a criminal sense but I think it would be sufficient grounds to allow
the company to void the insurance. It is frequently stated,
especially by insurance companies, that utmost good faith is
required for a valid insurance contract. They have precedent for
this. If they do rely on there being some likelihood the named
driver will sometimes drive (and there is ample evidence they do -
one insurance company recently asked me for an estimate of how many
miles a named driver was likely to do), then giving the name of
someone who was exceedingly unlikely ever to drive the car would be
misleading in a material respect. And I am not sure whether "utmost
good faith" might be breached by an untrue statement even if it had
no material affect on the risk. (IANAL)
Of course, you could avoid this potential problem by telling the
insurance company that the named driver was not likely to drive the
car and had not been told he was to be named. I have a funny
feeling the insurance company would then reject his name, so not
telling them would seem to a non-legal mind to be potentially
lacking in good faith.
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Finnigan
news:Xns9E55E8D42F4...@208.90.168.18...
------------------------------------------------
It`s very unlikely my wife will drive my car despite being insured on it -
she doesn`t like driving it as it`s too big. I drive her car occasionally
but not very often, but we are named on each others policy as it saves quite
a bit of money. I don`t remember ever being asked by my insurance company
how many miles the other person is likely to do.
Scion
> On Dec 20, 5:45 pm, "Scion" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That is exactly the point - it seems to me that Person A can add
>> Person B to their insurance, whether or not Person B agrees (or even
>> knows about it).
>
> But as I explained it isn't an issue, because from the point of view
> of your insurers it actually reduces risk so you're "paying too much"
> - same thing as the fact that mine says "parked on the driveway" when
> I sometimes park in the garage but mostly on the driveway.
The point is, I can *reduce* my premium by putting additional named drivers
on the insurance. So it's not a case of paying too much, but paying too
little.
Scion
Yep, it's not like "fronting" where the policy holder / first named driver
does not do the majority of the mileage.
It makes sense in certain circumstances to have additional drivers "just in
case".
Simon Finnigan
"Scion" wrote in message news:iev18f$hna$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
----------
Thats why my wife is on my policy - incase I decide I want a drink while
we`re out. I drive her car fairly often but we only tend to use my car
together for long drives, and she doesn`t like driving long distances. I
used to do a driving job so I`m quite used to it so everyones happy.
GP Hardy
On Dec 20, 5:45 pm, "Scion" wrote:
>> That is exactly the point - it seems to me that Person A can add Person B
>> to their insurance, whether or not Person B agrees (or even knows about
>> it).
> But as I explained it isn't an issue, because from the point of view of
> your insurers it actually reduces risk...
How does it reduce the risk? If I add my neighbour without his knowledge or
consent, how does that make me less likely to crash?
Sound to me like the insured is trying to obtain pecuniary advantage by
deception
Scion
> "Neil Williams" wrote...
>
> On Dec 20, 5:45 pm, "Scion" wrote:
>
>>> That is exactly the point - it seems to me that Person A can add
>>> Person B to their insurance, whether or not Person B agrees (or
>>> even knows about it).
>
>> But as I explained it isn't an issue, because from the point of view
>> of your insurers it actually reduces risk...
>
> How does it reduce the risk? If I add my neighbour without his
> knowledge or consent, how does that make me less likely to crash?
It doesn't, as far as I can tell.
>
> Sound to me like the insured is trying to obtain pecuniary advantage
> by deception
Where's the deception though? The insured isn't saying that a particular
driver will drive the car, just that he wants him to be insured to drive it.
Compare with, say, buying tickets for a theatre or theme park or whatever.
If you want to buy tickets for nine people, but you buy a discounted book of
ten tickets for less than the cost of nine individual tickets, is there
deception if only nine people use the tickets?
Roland Perry
Dec 2010, GP Hardy <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> remarked:
>Sound to me like the insured is trying to obtain pecuniary advantage by
>deception
Which isn't illegal any more, since 2006 (replaced by other offences).
--
Roland Perry
Ste
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
> > "Percy Picacity" wrote in message
> >news:Xns9E55E8D42F4...@208.90.168.18...
>
But only because the policyholder specifically states that they are
the "main driver".
> It makes sense in certain circumstances to have additional drivers "just in
> case".
You don't need to justify the logic of it, other than to say "it makes
sense to have additional drivers in order to lower the premiums". The
contract is for insurance, including one or more permitted drivers.
The fact that certain people are permitted to drive the car, does not
mean that they have to, unless the policy states that they must. As it
stands, where policies do not (to the best of my knowledge) require
any particular driver to actually drive the car, then if insurance
companies are barmy enough to offer discounts for insuring additional
drivers, many of whom will never even set arse in the car let alone
drive it, then that is their problem.
Percy Picacity
> Yep, it's not like "fronting" where the policy holder / first
> named driver does not do the majority of the mileage.
>
> It makes sense in certain circumstances to have additional drivers
> "just in case".
>
> ----------
>
> Thats why my wife is on my policy - incase I decide I want a drink
> while we`re out. I drive her car fairly often but we only tend to
> use my car together for long drives, and she doesn`t like driving
> long distances. I used to do a driving job so I`m quite used to
> it so everyones happy.
>
That makes perfect sense - the original discussion was about putting
people who are never going to drive and don't know they're being named
on the policy, possibly people not even personally known to the
policyholder.
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Finnigan
"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
news:Xns9E598750CAB...@208.90.168.18...
-----------------------------------
But my wife is very unlikely to use my car - she might not drive it at all
during the year. If an insurance company doesn`t ask me how many miles I
expect another driver to do, or whether that driver is likely to actually
use the car, I don`t see anything wrong with naming another person as a
second driver. Why am I obliged to tell (for example) my friend that i`ve
named him on my policy - if he doesn`t drive the car there`s no harm done,
if he does then he`s covered.
Scion
When your friend buying his own insurance he may well be asked if he is
insured to drive another vehicle. He can, in good faith, to the best of his
knowledge, answer "no" but it would be difficult to prove that he *didn't*
know and we've all heard tales of insurance companies wriggling out of
paying up for the most trivial of reasons.
Simon Finnigan
----------
Insurance company - "Simon, did you ever tell John that you added him on
your policy as a named driver"
Simon - "No, I never told him this"
Unless they want to accuse me of fraudulent behaviour (at least) they`d have
to accept it, especially if they are unable to produce evidence that John
had ever driven my car.