Insuring a car twice ...

lazer-zxr

Hi,
My father owns a 1 year old car, that he uses once a week. He is the owner (outright) and sole driver insured on the vehicle.

We may look at the following scenario, and not sure if it is possible to do this from an insurance point of view:

Transfer ownership of the car to myself.
My father to remain a fully comp driver.
Myself to be fully comp + business insurance

Thanks for any advice.

Herzlos

You should be able to insure it in your name as the main driver, with him as an additional driver, whilst still leaving it in his name.

bowlhead99

lazer-zxr wrote: »

Transfer ownership of the car to myself.

Yes he can do this, and cancel his remaining insurance

My father to remain a fully comp driver.
Myself to be fully comp + business insurance

You can then insure your new car fully comp with business insurance and name him as a second driver on your policy for the car, he would also benefit from the fully comp coverage that your policy provides.

He would no longer be building up a 'no claims bonus', because he's no longer owning a policy against which he's not claiming, if you see what I mean. But you would be.

Literally insuring it twice (i.e. under two policies) would be expensive and tricky - even though it would be technically possible for a time, it would be a huge hassle when claiming because two separate insurers would want to divide the responsibilities for cover between them (if you claimed off one they would say they were not the only company with a responsibility for settling), so you have two premiums, two excesses etc.

rudekid48

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes he can do this, and cancel his remaining insurance
You can then insure your new car fully comp with business insurance and name him as a second driver on your policy for the car, he would also benefit from the fully comp coverage that your policy provides.

He would no longer be building up a 'no claims bonus', because he's no longer owning a policy against which he's not claiming, if you see what I mean. But you would be.

Literally insuring it twice (i.e. under two policies) would be expensive and tricky - even though it would be technically possible for a time, it would be a huge hassle when claiming because two separate insurers would want to divide the responsibilities for cover between them (if you claimed off one they would say they were not the only company with a responsibility for settling), so you have two premiums, two excesses etc.

No he wouldn't. If the policy had an extension for driving other cars then this would cover the policyholder only not the named driver

shaun_from_Africa

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes he can do this, and cancel his remaining insurance
You can then insure your new car fully comp with business insurance and name him as a second driver on your policy for the car, he would also benefit from the fully comp coverage that your policy provides.

rudekid48 wrote: »

No he wouldn't. If the policy had an extension for driving other cars then this would cover the policyholder only not the named driver

But an extension for DOC doesn't enter into what was suggested above.
What bowlhead suggested is for the car to be transferred into the OP's name then for the OP to insure it fully comp then add their father as a named driver on that policy.

arcon5

I thought most insurance policies nowadays included terms that if there is another policy they will look to pay their proportion of the claim and not the full claim

facade

If there were two policies running, both covering only a single (different) driver, then in the case of an accident when the car was being driven, there would only be one policy in force, so it would have to pay out 100%.

The advantage of two policies is that if the OP's father crashes the car whilst a named driver on the OP's insurance, the OP has made a claim, suffered a loss etc. to declare for 5 years AND the father has an accident to declare.

If the OP has his own insurance, then he has not had an accident, made a claim, or suffered a loss, only the father has.

If the car were stolen with two policies in force, there might be split liability.

rudekid48

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But an extension for DOC doesn't enter into what was suggested above.
What bowlhead suggested is for the car to be transferred into the OP's name then for the OP to insure it fully comp then add their father as a named driver on that policy.

It does enter into it. The father is currently policyholder and would become the named driver so would lose this benefit. It may not be important to him but the post I quoted gave the impression that there would be no difference in cover when there would be.

rs65

lazer-zxr wrote: »

Transfer ownership of the car to myself.
My father to remain a fully comp driver.
Myself to be fully comp + business insurance

Thanks for any advice.

Do you mean having a policy each? If so, why?

bowlhead99

rudekid48 wrote: »

It does enter into it. The father is currently policyholder and would become the named driver so would lose this benefit. It may not be important to him but the post I quoted gave the impression that there would be no difference in cover when there would be.

The post you quoted, which I wrote, didn't say there would be no difference in cover. It simply said that the father could be a named driver on the son's fully comp policy and benefit from the fully comprehensive cover that policy provided. In other words being able to drive the car, crash it, and have the policy pay out for the damage to that car, not just the damage to third parties.

The ability to drive the car comprehensively insured for risks including damage to that car (rather than only insured for the risks to third parties or the risk of fire and theft) is separate and distinct from another benefit which is sometimes bundled in with comprehensive coverage, "driving other cars", e.g.

The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement, within our territorial limits, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car

That "driving other cars" coverage may or may not be something that the father has on his existing insurance policy and may or may not be something that the son gets if the son takes out an insurance policy once the car has been transferred to him. But Comprehensive coverage of risks for the car insured does not automatically extend driving other cars privileges to the policyholder. It is simply something that may be made available by some insurers for some types of customers. Sometimes they don't give it unless you ask for it and then they might give it for free if you do, but you have to read the T&C of your policy and your certificate to see what rights you have bought.

The OP did not mention that he or the father had any interest in driving any other cars they didn't own. It simply said the father wanted to remain a fully comp driver of the car. Presumably so that when he crashes it, the son who needs it for business is not suddenly without a car and out of pocket by thousands to replace it.

rs65 wrote: »

Do you mean having a policy each? If so, why?

An example of why you might like to have a policy each was in post 7
Another is continued earning of separate NCBs.

The downside is cost of multiple policies who both assume you might be driving the car almost 100% of the time, and the hassle factor when it comes to a claim and a risk is insured by multiple insurers

rs65

bowlhead99 wrote: »

An example of why you might like to have a policy each was

The question was to the OP. What is the OP trying to achieve?