Fronting

dacouch

Jonboy be careful with your posts, saying that if you have take third party cover there is no way you can be out of pocket is incorrect.

If you the Insurer avoid the policy from inception they will refund the premium and declare them policy null and void. Depending on the circumstances they may have to pay the third party or may not. If they do then they will simply sue the policy holder for reimbersement. They are very good at getting money out of people especially in those types of circumstances.

I've seen customers who have been sued for five figure sums following an accident where there was a non disclosure.

The other problem you can have is you then have to declare an insurance policy as being declined / voided which makes it almost impossibe to obtain any type of insurance policy ever again

RobertoMoir

*astro* wrote: »

How would the insurance company know if he is the main driver - if he were to have an accident - he could be driving it as a once off.

If you know more about making insurance claims than an insurance company knows about investigating them, then you must have had a lot of accidents since you started driving.

JonBoy_SCFC

dacouch wrote: »

Jonboy be careful with your posts, saying that if you have take third party cover there is no way you can be out of pocket is incorrect.

to claim that i've said that is incorrect too;)

FlameCloud

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!

Aside from this you mean?

JonBoy_SCFC

not at all.

Read what i said (there's no situation where the customer would end up getting money from the insurer)

compare to what Dacouch suggested i said ( there's no way the customer would be out of pocket)

Quite different don't you agree;)

FlameCloud

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

not at all.

Read what i said (there's no situation where the customer would end up getting money from the insurer)

compare to what Dacouch suggested i said ( there's no way the customer would be out of pocket)

Quite different don't you agree;)

Not really. Read the first line of what I quoted- where you said that the 'then the insurer won't be able to refuse to pay out any claim'

This is wholly incorrect, and dangerous, silly advise.

dacouch

You actually said "then the insurer won't be able to refuse to pay out any claim"

JonBoy_SCFC

dacouch wrote: »

You actually said "then the insurer won't be able to refuse to pay out any claim"

they can't.

they may attempt to pursue this loss with the policyholder, but they cannot refuse to cover the 3rd party only claim

This is correct isn't it?

mattymoo

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

they can't.

they may attempt to pursue this loss with the policyholder, but they cannot refuse to cover the 3rd party only claim

This is correct isn't it?

No, you're talking about Road Traffic Act liabilities that require an insurer to compensate the victim if their policyholder has breached the policy terms and has no cover.

The first thing the insurer does in this case is check the accident happened on a road. The definition of a road is quite wide but a lot of accidents occur on private land, driveways etc and the RTA liability does not extend this far.