Fronting car insurance

I_was_just_wondering

I'd be interested to hear from people in the insurance business or people with first hand experience of being caught (or accused of) fronting.

(Incidentally, the AA seem to offer a fairly clear definition of "Main Driver". I can't post proper links, but you can cut and paste this: theaa.com/car-insurance/help.html)

The reason for my question: It sounds like many of my son's 17 year old friends are blatantly fronting - possibly without realising that it is wrong. i.e. The parent buys a second car for the sole use of the 17yo. For insurance, the parent is the 'main driver', the 17yo is a 'named driver'. The parent never drives the second car. (I have flatly refused to do this for my son, but I'm wondering about the potential trouble his friends are facing.)

I guess if the 17yo never has an accident, they will probably not be found out. But if they do have an accident (and lets say they are at fault, and they cause damage and personal injury), a standard interview by the insurance co will almost certainly show that they are fronting.

I've read lots of scare stories about what insurance cos might do when they catch someone fronting, but in real cases, what do they really do?

For example, which of the following really happens:

1) They pay 3rd party damages, incl personal injury - but refuse to pay for repairs to policyholders car (assuming fully comp insurance)
2) They persue the 17yo and/or the policyholder for repayment of 3rd party claim
3) They report the 17yo to the police for driving without insurance ( = 6 points + fine = lost licence + extended retest)
4) They report the policyholder to the police for fraud/deception ( = criminal conviction)
5) They cancel the policy for fraud ( = very difficult for policyholder to get mainstream insurance ever.)

If the insurance companies really do all these things, those 17 year olds and their parents are facing devastating consequences.

mikey72

I_was_just_wondering wrote: »

For example, which of the following really happens:

1) They pay 3rd party damages, incl personal injury - but refuse to pay for repairs to policyholders car (assuming fully comp insurance)
2) They persue the 17yo and/or the policyholder for repayment of 3rd party claim

3) They report the 17yo to the police for driving without insurance ( = 6 points + fine = lost licence + extended retest)
4) They report the policyholder to the police for fraud/deception ( = criminal conviction)

5) They cancel the policy for fraud ( = very difficult for policyholder to get mainstream insurance ever.)

If the insurance companies really do all these things, those 17 year olds and their parents are facing devastating consequences.

They can do 1, 2, and 5.

They can do 3 and 4, but as they have no proof, it's only their opinion, and unlikely to go anywhere.

1) - the policyholder can complain to the FOS, or even take them to court, so it's subject to review by a third party.
2) - involves the insurer going to court, and proving their case again.

If they can prove it, or show it's reasonable to assume, the policyholder loses though.

5) is about all they can actually unilateraly do.

dacouch

mikey72 wrote: »

They can do 1, 2, and 5.

They can do 3 and 4, but as they have no proof, it's only their opinion, and unlikely to go anywhere.

1) - the policyholder can complain to the FOS, or even take them to court, so it's subject to review by a third party.
2) - involves the insurer going to court, and proving their case again.

If they can prove it, or show it's reasonable to assume, the policyholder loses though.

5) is about all they can actually unilateraly do.

Note the Ombudsman is not very sympathetic about fronting and will often side with the Insurer.


There are a number of ways Insurers catch fronters out, these can be simple things such as how many cars are there in the family or the type of car and is it modified etc. There are more subtle ways they do this which can be as simple as checking whose name is on the receipt from the car dealer or checking with the young drivers college or work to see if they have a parking permit etc. Another give away is the car being registered in the parents name.

With regard to point 2), claims from young drivers tend to be considerably larger than normal drivers due to the speed of the crashes but more so due to them tending to have a number of young passengers. The personal injury / loss of earnings / contiunual nursing costs for these accidents can be very very expensive. So an Insurer pursuing the policyholder or driver can cause major problems to them, it's possible for the parent to lose their home or have a charge placed on it

mavisangelica

Just posted in another thread about this. I rang to change my insurance (new car) and also asked about adding son as he will be 17 in October. I had a brief discussion about if it would be ok to add rather than him have his own insurance. (Wanted to check as I was worried about the above.) My plan would be that we would give him a lift to work/college every day (as on the way to my work) but he would use the car in the evening if he went out. The advisor said that this would be ok and implied that the swaying factor was whether he would be using it to go backwards and forward to work or an educational establishment. (Guess if that was the case it would be 5 days a week so the 'majority' of the week.)

Santini

I have 1 car in my houshold whith both of my son's as named drivers. Son 1 has access to his girlfriend's car as well so he doesn't use my car that often. I am a named driver on my daughter's car ( but she lives in another town) which I drive only very occassionally. Son 2 uses the car to go to college 2 days a week and for local use when I don't need it. I don't use it for commuting but use it evenings and weekends and by far drive the most miles in it. I have always classed myself as the main driver.
I'm curious how insurers class the main driver -the person who drives the most miles or the person who makes the journeys?

InsideInsurance

As far as I am aware most insurers do not as accurately defined as either (a) most hours (b) greatest distance or (c) highest journey count

Without a formal definition it would come down to a plain English interpretation of the phrase which to me would be arguable between A or B.

Insurer's aren't going to be looking at cases where Mum uses it 49.9% and Son uses it 50.1% but where the fronting is much more clear cut.

mikey72

Usually it's when mum or dad has a 2l sports car or people carrier, with just themselves insured on, and drives that one to work every day, and then buys a 1l corsa "for weekend use", but their son or daughter crashes it one evening.
Then the insurers look at it.

whatmichaelsays

I've discussed this with an insurance broker who is a client of mine and some of the ways that dacouch mentions to detect fronting are common. There are usually some very tell-tale, if albeit subtle signs that fronting may be going on.

Then of course, there are the slightly more blatent cases where a Fiat Punto "insured" by a 50-year-old company director in Edinburgh was regularly crashed / broken into on a university campus in Southampton. In fact, cases of that ilk that were surprisingly common.

deutsch

For example, which of the following really happens:

1) They pay 3rd party damages, incl personal injury - but refuse to pay for repairs to policyholders car (assuming fully comp insurance)

Whether it is Comp cover, TPFT, TPO, the insurer can and will likely not pay any damage to the policyholders car or third party damages. They void the policy from inception, as though it never was in force. This could result in the third party suing the driver directly, as the insurance company isn't responsible for the third party damage.

Non fault claims with comprehensive cover. The insurer won't deal with the claim / policyholders car damage either.

2) They persue the 17yo and/or the policyholder for repayment of 3rd party claim
They won't pay out at all if they void the policy. To the insurer, the 17 year old won't be able to afford the cost of the claim, so why deal with it at all. The 17 year old was trying to avoid high insurance premiums in the first place!

5) They cancel the policy for fraud ( = very difficult for policyholder to get mainstream insurance ever.)
Spot on.

If the insurance companies really do all these things, those 17 year olds and their parents are facing devastating consequences.
Exactly!

vaio

deutsch wrote: »

......Whether it is Comp cover, TPFT, TPO, the insurer can and will likely not pay any damage to the policyholders car or third party damages. They void the policy from inception, as though it never was in force. This could result in the third party suing the driver directly, as the insurance company isn't responsible for the third party damage.........

Nah, RTA makes it pretty much impossible for an insurer to get out of paying third party claims.

deutsch

vaio wrote: »

Nah, RTA makes it pretty much impossible for an insurer to get out of paying third party claims.

Doesn't the third party insurance company claim directly off the MIB though and not the fronted person's insurance company? The fronted person's insurance company have void the policy, making no contract between the fronted person and the insurance company?