Insuring Car X but then actually driving Car Y insured with your policy?

dacouch

You should be aware that Quinn have a certain reputation for paying claims, their investigators are amongst the most thorough / tenacious.

They have a section in their policy that allows them not to pay out if the vehicle is not road worthy which is this section

e make sure the vehicle is kept in a roadworthy condition
and, if necessary, has a valid NCT certificate.
For example:
• the tyre tread depth must be within the legal limits;
• all lights and mirrors installed on the vehicle must be
working properly; and
• the vehicle’s brakes (front and back) must be working
correctly.

Have a read of this article which is one of their claims that they are famous for

http://www.instimes.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=363545

If your thinking of putting one over on Quinn which is in effect what you will be doing they will find out about it and do their best to not pay it. Quinn are not stupid and have made their business a success on the basis of a very very robust claims investigation and settlement of the claims.

I do not recommend you do what you are proposing, if you write and ask Quinn outlining what you are doing they will realise what you are doing and are very likely to change the wording on your policy to stop it as they offer the driving other cars as a benefit to use in an emergency and not how you propose to use it

Quentin

This all seems scaremongering. The case you linked to is about a 2007 fire claim - nothing to do with motor insurance.

This forum's moneysaving success is regularly based on loopholes - which do often get closed!

There is nothing in the policy or certificate saying driving other cars is only for emergency use.

Many motorists regularly make use of this provision in their insurance cover for non emergency use.

dacouch

Quentin wrote: »

This all seems scaremongering. The case you linked to is about a 2007 fire claim - nothing to do with motor insurance.

This forum's moneysaving success is regularly based on loopholes - which do often get closed!

There is nothing in the policy or certificate saying driving other cars is only for emergency use.

Many motorists regularly make use of this provision in their insurance cover for non emergency use.

I'm not trying to scare monger just warn him of possible repurcussions, I assume you have never had any dealings with Quinn on claims.

There is a lot more involved in that fire claim I refer that is not reported in that article, if you ask around you will be able to find out what was done in that case.

My points were that he must ensure the car he is insuring withg Quinn to get the d.o.c is totally roadworthy as quinn are known to use this warrenty to reduce or invalidate claims. Also that if he writes to Quinn outlining what he is doing they are very likely not to be happy as they are not collecting a premium that reflects the risk of the car he is actually driving. They are thus likely to either charge more or endorse his policy to prevent it.

mattymoo

I'll second what dacouch is saying. Quinn are notorious for their claims stance and they faired very badly in a recent league table for customer satisfaction. The oft aimed accusation of "hiding behind the small print" is quite fair in relation to Quinn.

Quote

Quentin wrote: »

Many motorists regularly make use of this provision in their insurance cover for non emergency use.

What has that got to do with anything?

Lots of people buy the Daily Mail...

Jakg

brandguru wrote: »

Stop trying to beat the system and commit insurance fraud. This is very similar to 'insurance fronting'

http://www.moneynews.co.uk/5495/zurich-warns-young-drivers-against-car-insurance-fronting/

Your scenario can be related to this. I do KNOW that this is different, however you may think to yourself that being a named driver on somebody's policy is perfectly fine as its "not" your car and you are "not" the main drivers - WRONG. If the insurance company can find a way out of paying in the event of an accident, they will.

Except I am not a named driver on anyone elses policy and I will be the main driver. And my insurance company have agreed to this...

How exactly is it fraud?

You've totally misunderstood what i'm saying...

dacouch

Quote wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything?

Lots of people buy the Daily Mail...

Lol!!!

You can never have enough Diana conspiracy stories

LadyIndecisive

Jakg - just wondering, have Quinn replied as yet?

Jakg

By email - yes, saying it was fine (even if I was the main driver).

By letter - No, not yet

brandguru

Jakg wrote: »

Except I am not a named driver on anyone elses policy and I will be the main driver. And my insurance company have agreed to this...

How exactly is it fraud?

You've totally misunderstood what i'm saying...

I didn't misunderstand it at all which is why I said I know it is different. All I am saying is that you'll be telling your Dad's insurance company that he is going to be the main driver of his car, and you'll be telling your insurance company that you'll be the main driver of the cheap car which is not true (it is on paper, but not in practise). Insurance investigators are bound to know this.

I think you should show some appreciation to those who are helping you look at every possibility that could happen for the sake of saving a few quid.