2 insurance policies on one car?

vaio

go with post #3 and if they won't suspend it then bite the bullet and cancel it

Obviously check the fees for each option and factor in when you are likely to get a new car

Bobster64

Call the insurance company and ask. No need to give the, your name or anything just ask a general question.

Most companies will allow you pause the policy or may give you yrs no claims anyway if you have paid up for the yr

UsernameAlreadyExists

FlameCloud wrote: »

It is poor advice as you are exposing the OP to a risk of bankruptcy over a cancellation fee. The fact that you did it and got away with it doesn't mean you were right, just lucky.

You have a point .. hence my thanks on you post.
I wasn't giving advice and suggesting that he didn't cancel, I was merely stating what I did.

As such I still see no "problems" with there being 2 policies on the same vehicle ... but I do recognise and agree with the problem if his policy wasn't cancelled and no new policy was taken out.

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

You have a point .. hence my thanks on you post.
I wasn't giving advice and suggesting that he didn't cancel, I was merely stating what I did.

As such I still see no "problems" with there being 2 policies on the same vehicle ... but I do recognise and agree with the problem if his policy wasn't cancelled and no new policy was taken out.

I've seen it happen twice in my career and the client ended up seriously out of pocket.

Bear in mind it's only really been possible to trace the first policy since the introduction of the MID which was circa 2006 so it's not as uncommon as you would think.

The costs passed onto the first policyholder can be a lot more than normal as the Insurer often employs expensive tracing agents to try and find the person who bought the car (Invariably in cash and the log book was not transferred over)

spacey2012

You can have 1000 policies, the one that has been in-force the longest will trump the rest in liability.

rtho782

I had a small 125 motorbike, sold it a few months after I got my full size bike.

It was insured 3rd party only for me to drive. No theft cover, no other drivers covered.

As such I left the policy to run to keep the no claims. There could be no issue around my policy being used for an incident as my policy only covers the 3rd party risk of me driving - which I obviously won't be. Theft, someone else driving, etc, is all outside the remit of the policy.

dacouch

rtho782 wrote: »

I had a small 125 motorbike, sold it a few months after I got my full size bike.

It was insured 3rd party only for me to drive. No theft cover, no other drivers covered.

As such I left the policy to run to keep the no claims. There could be no issue around my policy being used for an incident as my policy only covers the 3rd party risk of me driving - which I obviously won't be. Theft, someone else driving, etc, is all outside the remit of the policy.

That's not how the Road Traffic Act works, if there's a policy on the vehicle even if it does not cover the driver then should the owner not arrange insurance and have an accident. It's likely that your Insurer would have to pay a third party claim which if they do they are likely to come after you for full payment for causing it.

It's a UK Law which was explained by a poster earlier.

It's possible that had the person who bought your motorbike did not arrange Insurance and had an accident that your Insurers would have had to pay the third party claim. If they had they would either go after you for the money or if they could find the purchaser them.

thenudeone

Here is the law which creates the problem:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
esp. subsection 2) b)

Effectively what it means is that if a judgement is obtained in court against any person who was driving the car (unless it was stolen/TWOCd) the insurer of the car must pay up EVEN IF the driver wasn't the policyholder or named on the policy, and EVEN IF they don't have a driving licence.

dacouch

thenudeone wrote: »

Here is the law which creates the problem:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
esp. subsection 2) b)

Effectively what it means is that if a judgement is obtained in court against any person who was driving the car (unless it was stolen/TWOCd) the insurer of the car must pay up EVEN IF the driver wasn't the policyholder or named on the policy, and EVEN IF they don't have a driving licence.

Including Stolen / TWOC

vaio

spacey2012 wrote: »

You can have 1000 policies, the one that has been in-force the longest will trump the rest in liability.

Does it?

I thought if multiple policies covered the same risk on an indemnity (?) basis then the claim would be split between the policies.

Different story for stuff like life cover....then every policy will pay out