Fronting

JonBoy_SCFC

remember that if you are only looking for 3rd party only insurance, then the insurer won't be able to refuse to pay out any claim.

there's no situation where you'd end up getting money from them anyway!

Cazza

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

remember that if you are only looking for 3rd party only insurance, then the insurer won't be able to refuse to pay out any claim.

there's no situation where you'd end up getting money from them anyway!

TPFT wouldn't make any difference. If you look at the post above, if the insurance company think the policy is fronted, they will treat it as if it never existed, if you never had the policy, how can they pay out?

JonBoy_SCFC

Cazza wrote: »

TPFT wouldn't make any difference. If you look at the post above, if the insurance company think the policy is fronted, they will treat it as if it never existed, if you never had the policy, how can they pay out?

i think it's called the road traffic act which means the insurance company would have to pay out even if they think it's fronting, they have no real choice or any realistic alternative

hope this helps:money:

Tigsteroonie

Lavendyr wrote: »

You pay the premium, but put him as the main driver - simple. My dad paid my insurance for the first couple of years (yes, I was very very lucky, I know) and I was the main driver, so it's certainly possible to do that.

Yep, 'tis. My ex was Policyholder of the insurance on my car, but I was always named as Main Driver.

dunstonh

i think it's called the road traffic act which means the insurance company would have to pay out even if they think it's fronting, they have no real choice or any realistic alternative

I dont believe that is the case. If the insurer void the policy, the driver can then be prosecuted for not having insurance. They effectively become an uninsured driver.

At least that is my take on it. If the insurance is voided, I cant see why the insurer would then be required to pay out.

JonBoy_SCFC

beleive it is the case, maybe one of the board experts could confirm?

i think that using your logic, it would be in the insurers interest to void as many policies as they can get away with, which isn't in the governments best interests. i think that's why the government set the law the way it is.

Cazza

dunstonh wrote: »

I dont believe that is the case. If the insurer void the policy, the driver can then be prosecuted for not having insurance. They effectively become an uninsured driver.

At least that is my take on it. If the insurance is voided, I cant see why the insurer would then be required to pay out.

That was my understanding of the situation too, but I wasn't certain enough to disagree with JonBoy_SCFC. I think if you were the third party in this situation, you would not lose out as there is a central pot, held to cover claims against uninsured drivers?? I'm happy to be corrected if that's an urban myth though!

maggiem

Think there may be another issue - when i tried to set up a policy for my son as main driver on his car I had to pay the whole amount of the insurance up front. They would not allow me to pay in installments as he was the main driver and could not legally hold a credit agreemnt in his name even if I was paying it and I could not put him as a named driver as then that would be 'fronting'!:mad: This menat I had to pay a premium of 1K+ up front! Luckily I managed to do that by paying on a 0% interest free card but still felt very unreasonable to me and as we had paid insurance for his sister for a year felt had to do the same for him!

Hope you manage to sort this out for your son!

JonBoy_SCFC

i think the pool you are talking about is more for drivers who are blatantly driving around without having bothered to get insurance in the first place, rather than people who've had a policy voided. might also cover "hit and run" accidents i don't know

i just don't think it would be workable your way because you'd have companies like Quinn voiding policies all the time for the slightest thing and the claims costs being shared between all the insurers, but Quinn keeping all the premiums. just wouldn't work, wouldn't be fair on the insurers who pay out on a more fair basis

FlameCloud

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

i think it's called the road traffic act which means the insurance company would have to pay out even if they think it's fronting, they have no real choice or any realistic alternative

hope this helps:money:

The Road Traffic Act is in place, unfortunatly though it argues the opposite of what you are suggesting . Its section 152.2 a.ii. This basically entitles the insurer to avoid third party damage claims if the policy has been avoided.