Two policies, one vehicle?

System

Quentin wrote: »

You are mistaken, and look to be seeking excuses for when you are accused of taking out a second policy where you will be fronting.

Where your definition correct, then there would be never any need to nominate the main driver.

(Your definition of the legal owner always being the main driver makes company owned cars having the company as the main driver!)

I wasn't asserting this theory, I was merely responding to the suggestion that each policy has a main driver depending on who is mainly driving under that policy.
If for example one person's driving was very restricted by his policy, nonetheless he would be the main driver under that policy, even though the minority driver in total useage terms.
Or not? I'm only asking.

I am the main driver. I would have another policy to enable my daughter to drive occasionally. All her driving would be under that policy, mine would be presumably under both policies at once. But is anyone seriously arguing that would make her the main driver under the second policy ?

( I wasn't arguing that the legal owner was the main driver. I was pointing out that the legal owner is the only one who benefits from the policy for 22/24 of the day, because of theft cover while the car is not driven by anyone)

InsideInsurance

How much over book price is the guaranteed valuation?

It seems a lot of hassle if you are to be named on the policy for her to have the dual insurance and potentially only get book valuation anyway because of the dual aspect with a non-classic policy.

Its not the legal owner that benefits 22/24 of the day, you can be contractually liable for a car without being its owner (eg if you lease a car) and so the owner gets paid by "you" whatever, its just the security of the vehicle thats removed where as you being the one liable for the vehicle have the advantage that at least what the car is worth is deducted from the monies owed if its stolen/ not recovered

SimonSays

One fact of the matter is, If the daughter gets her own policy of just her She wouldn't be able to prove Insurable Interest?

Also if the Land Rover gets written off, Which policy will you claim on, the Agreed Value or the Market Value? (Which can be the difference of thousands of pounds!)

rs65

SimonSays wrote: »

One fact of the matter is, If the daughter gets her own policy of just her She wouldn't be able to prove Insurable Interest?

Why not ?

nobbysn*ts

Course she would. My kids have insured my cars, for themselves. They certainly have an insurable interest. I lend it them. They break it. They replace it. That's certainly an interest.

System

Does complying with the law give someone an insurable interest, regardless of ownership? It's worth paying a premium in order to avoid a fine, criminal record, or prison.


Someone earlier gave an example of double insurance cover if someone takes out temporary insurance in order to drive someone else's car for 2 weeks. Who would be the main driver? The person driving it for that 2 weeks, or the person driving it for 50/52 of a year?

Quentin

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

......Someone earlier gave an example of double insurance cover if someone takes out temporary insurance in order to drive someone else's car for 2 weeks. Who would be the main driver? The person driving it for that 2 weeks, or the person driving it for 50/52 of a year?

When you use temporary insurance cover the "main driver" issue doesn't come into it.

SimonSays

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Course she would. My kids have insured my cars, for themselves. They certainly have an insurable interest. I lend it them. They break it. They replace it. That's certainly an interest.

Not in the eyes of insurance. If they don't own it they don't have the insurable interest. Its like me insuring a wedding ring on my mates wifes finger!


They will ask "Are you the registered owner and keeper" If she answers yes, Shes lied on a proposal form. If she answers no most will decline cover, due to no insurable interest.

SimonSays

rs65 wrote: »

Why not ?

Because she isn't the owner or keeper of the vehicle

Quentin

SimonSays wrote: »

Because she isn't the owner or keeper of the vehicle

Ignore this " guess". It looks to be posted by someone with no knowledge.



Your definition of "insurable interest" is mistaken.

You have an insurable interest when you would suffer a loss were the insured item to be damaged, lost etc and you were responsible for it at the time.

You are thinking of the requirement many insurers stipulate that the proposer should be the owner and RK. Quite different from having an insurable interest.