As Dave said, if what you are doing does not affect the policy then there is no problem in writing to the insurance company and telling them of the changes, an insurance Co. can and DO use the fact that changes (how ever slight) have not been forwarded to them to refuse claims, it is your responsibility to keep them informed, you can't (unilaterally) decide what possible 'change of risk' does and does not affect the policy.
I've dealt with accident damage where the insuring company refuse to pay out, although I've not come across a case were they refuse to pay out on any third party damage (but I expect that does happen), remember that insurance companies are in business NOT to pay out - a fact that most people seem to be ignorant of, the "It's insured, they will pay for any damage no matter what" kind of sticking ones head well into the sand...
Undoubtedly correct. However any change of ownership would occur
*before* the vehicle was insured and would be made quite clear on the application. Absolutely nothing would be witheld and all requested information supplied truthfully in full.
What Dave is suggesting is then writing to the insurers to say something along the lines of: "I've only done this to get cheap insurance for my tearaway son and have no interest in him or the car. Once you're daft enough the insure the drug-crazed halfwit he'll drive off into the sunset leaving a trail of human corpses in his wake. I assume you still want to insure me?"
No - I'm suggesting that deep in the conditions of the insurance policy - that no one ever reads - there will be something about the principle user of the car, regardless of who owns it on paper. Anthing else would be ridiculous.
Insurance companies are rather more adept at looking after their own interests - ie income and outgoings - than you seem to think.
There's no clause anything like that and believe me we closely checked our own policy when my son was insured. As has already been mentioned insurance companies support such an arrangement as it exerts a degree of parental influence over the young driver. My son clearly understood that the consequences of an insurance claim would additionally mean answering to me. Today he has an unblemished 10-year driving record.
I dare say you've already done a websearch for just such a preclusion and can't find so much as a sniff. You've no evidence whatsoever to support such speculative pessimism.
No, my youngest son is currently and quite legally insured under the same arrangement. I've combed through the policy and there's not a word about the policy holder being the principle user.
You must disclose any material fact which may affect the risk. This includes things like change of garaging arrangements, drivers' health, increases in engine performance etc. This is requested initially and at each renewal by all companies that I've had dealings with. We tell the agent the whole story as to who is driving, and who is the principal driver (and mostly it's an agent, who gets commission for the sales), note the name and date/time of the call and any responses made. It's possible an agent will not pass on the details just to get the sale, so have a note of the details. In some cases premiums have risen a small amount, in others it's been worth looking at another insurer. The first time we got insurance for a learner driver, the AA computer used the DOB of the older boy, as the new driver was a week or so under 17 and the software had rejected that as the basis for calculating the premium! It rose a lot the next year, but someone else covered it at a better rate instead.
If you fail to disclose any material facts (they decide what is material, and I'm sure a young driver as the principal driver would be material) your claim may be rejected. You could challenge them legally or via the Ombudsman, as was done with companies who refused claims over modifications that did not materially affect the risk (eg a driving accident in a car with alloys instead of the standard steel wheels, but not a theft claim for non-standard alloys). However, if they judged it material, you still wouldn't have a case.
As another poster has mentioned, you tend to get the service you pay for. A cheap quotation often hides limited liability and a tendency to get out of paying claims, or maybe a broker keen to get the sale commission by under-declaring the risk to the insurance company to get a lower premium.
PS my Beetle premium in 1966 for a £250 7-year old Beetle and 21 year old student was £25 TPFT. I reckon it's more these days - more like 20% of the value than 10%. It reflects the extra traffic and higher speeds on the roads, not that modern youth is more reckless or stupid - they're just more likely to hit something (expensive)! Oh, and they have more disposable income so can be fleeced a bit more - it just means fewer DVDs or a lower spec stereo (head unit/multichanger or whatever).
There doesn't need to be. The principal principle at stake is that of full disclosure. Hide a significant fact from your insurance company and they may well refuse to pay up in the event of a claim and the bigger the claim the more inclined they will be to be ruthless.
My own renewal documents which coincidentally turned up yesterday include the following under the heading "Important notes".
"Your quotation is based on the information you have provided. Failure to disclose material information may invalidate your insurance. If you are in doubt whether information is material it should be disclosed."
Don't mess with insurance companies, they hold the sharp teeth which they are not afraid to use and when they bite the wound can be very deep and the scare can last quite some time.
I've seen it happen to people, I know of one case were the owner had to pick up the 6K (six Thousand) ukp bill to repair his car, otherwise he would have been throwing away the cars 12K value. All because of one small error (non disclosure) in the material information supplied to the insurance company...
Just so. And if insuring the car in a parent's name while the offspring is the main user brings about a large saving in premium, then it's safe to assume that's a material fact.
Entirely agree. All required information must be disclosed along with any changes that would affect the policy. However a named driver on any insurance policy has *full* insured use of the vehice, be that 5%, 50% or 100% of the total use. No misinterpretation of the standard disclosure clause will alter that fact.
Yes although the insurance company may prove tricky proving that fact unless the owner has a second car. I've also read in the press a while ago insurance comapanies will often 'load' a premium anyway if a family suddenly gets a 2nd car with sibling as named driver especially if it is something more likely to appeal to sibbling than parent.
Of course in the end those that use their parents insurance often find themselves getting stung in the long run, insuring under your parents aged 17 saves you a few hundred , of course a few years later when you fancy something bigger and faster and you go to an insurance company direct, and they sting you harder, zero no claims, oooo thankyou very much. [1]
[1] As a collegue of a friend of mines just discovered, worked his way up through a Fiesta and a Golf under mummy, insured a R32 via work [2] now fancies an Evo aged 21-22 and instead of being quoted £2k with 4yrs no claims gets quoted over £4k [2] Works for a VW dealership
The other thing to remember too is that if you insure a car for an offspring, it's *your* no claims and record that gets the hit when he has an accident - as they often do at that age. Which is why the premium is high for young drivers in the first place.
Surely the kind of 21-22 year old that would consider an Evo would be able to afford the insurance, even at £4k. I'd assume they're in a reasonably well paid job, but sponging off their parents, so have very little else to spend their own cash on.
A few years ago we took a trip to Italy in our car (Jag) and took our daughter with us. Given that she's a good driver with a clean license/full NCD we decided it would be good if she could help with the driving.
The insurance quote was joke, up from £400 to £4000 just for having someone under 30 on the policy.
Jeez, it's not that much to add me to my dads Porsche [1], it was sub £1000 to insure it as mine a few years ago when I enquired (25 not full NCD). Never asked how much it would be to add me on top of his insurance though, or vice versa for that matter.
The Jag is Group 20, but that still doesn't account for a 10x increase in premium. TBH I think the insurers were using price as a way of persuading me to not add my daughter to the policy. It worked.
I'd say for that reason alone the YD on his parent's policy is less likely to make a claim. On his own policy mom & dad aren't in a position to nag. Probably explains why insurers assess the risk lower.
I make it abundantly clear to my offspring that their first accident means they can forget about driving again until age 25+. I'm also able to stipulate no more than 2 friends can be carried at any time no matter what the circumstances.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.