You do have an insurable interest. For one, there is liability to third parties for which you would be responsible. As for damage to your "own" car, you also have an insurable interest because the owner (your mum) would have a claim against you if you should wreck "her" car, since you would be expected to compensate her.
I'm not convinced by this. I see it written all over the net, but I got hit by a young girl who was driving a car (solely used by her it would seem) but insured under her Dad's name. When I suggested this to my insurance company (and eventually my solicitors) they couldn't give a toss, and the claim ended up 50-50.
In the end I think it comes down to the value of the claim. It costs ins Co's money to check that the details given on the proposal are accurate. I,e, that a named driver is not the main driver etc. With smaller value claims it's probably cheaper not to check if the details given are actually true.
I feel sure the same wouldn't apply if the Co was facing a potential personal injury claim that could run into tens of thousands of pounds. Mike.
David (David ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
You do. You're the main user of it.
SWMBO's car always used to be registered in her dad's name for some reason. He never had a licence, so couldn't have been on the insurance at all.
Why not? You don't need a licence to insure a car, only to drive it.
Ronald Raygun (Ronald Raygun ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Have you ever had car insurance?
Question 1 - "Do you hold a valid driving licence?"
I've had car insurance for decades. I don't remember being asked that question. There is only a condition on the certificate which stipulates that anyone actually driving the car must hold a VDL or have held one and not be disqualified from holding one. Hence driving with an expired licence would not of itself invalidate the policy.
Besides, in the case of a company car, the policyholder is (or can be) the company as owner. Obviously a company cannot hold a driving licence. It is of advantage for a company car to be covered by a policy in its own name rather than in the name of the drivers, because that way the company can earn NCD in its own right instead of losing it all when there is a change in the named driver(s).
Or in the case of rich people who employ a chauffeur, the owner (who may not have a driving licence) will insure the car but the chauffeur will be the main driver.
Maybe you should find other examples Benefits do not take account of cars,cinema systems nor PC's Stuart
Yes but my point was that it *may* be treated as a gift even if it isn't one. Benefits rules have strange provisions like that.
father
Not sure, but legal aid rules are more severe in what is considered, for instance the equity you have in the house you live in is disregarded for benefits purposes, but not for legal aid purposes.
They will look a little closer and see whether the policy holder should have paid a higher premium, or get a very large excess on his own claim. However, they will treat it just as normal as far as the other party in the claim is concerned.
Very interesting, but completely irrelevant to the immediately foregoing.
Fronting by parent or by anybody is not accepted by the insurance companies. The insurance should be with the main driver.....tell you what, try riming them and asking....
"nightjar .me.uk>" >> I looked at doing that when I was a student, admittedly a long time
equally
bothered which
A young man could face substantially higher premiums than a young woman, so a couple living at the same address could use the same dodge.
I don't know how it works but adding me as a named driver to my wife's policy reduced her premiums and adding her to my policy reduced mine.
I wrongly assumed that you were saying that if your mother gave you the money to buy a car that would affect you claim and if she gave you the car having paid for it then it would not. On reflection I don't see how possession of the car can affact your claim. Perhaps you can expand on what your reasoning was.
Peter Crosland
Yes, I've heard that. I think they assume married people, or couples who tend to travel together, are safer.
But wonder if it'd make any difference whose name the policy was in? It probably wouldn't make much difference for people 30+, but may for younger couples.
So what? It has nothing to do with the foregoing. Don't you understand context?
Not in the case of company cars. It is a well accepted and established practice for insurance to be in the company's name, with main drivers being named.
Who do you think I am, the ancient mariner?
David wrote in news:Xns9A2D9B33E721BD92F1@127.0.0.1:
Cheating the system is something I would not condone. I hate people like you.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required