Insuring a car twice ...

bowlhead99

rs65 wrote: »

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

Without wanting to put words into his mouth, but without really needing to because they are in his first post, he wanted to be able to drive the car comprehensively for business use and he also wanted his father to be able to drive the car with comprehensive cover. At least that's what his post asked if he could do.

He can achieve it in more than one way. Between the various posts he's been given the main options but perhaps he will let us know if he has something more specific in mind.

rudekid48

bowlhead99 wrote: »

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.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.


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

Thanks for the long winded reply. A simple "yes, my first post could have been clearer" would have sufficed but I appreciate your effort

bigjl

You can't insure the same car twice

It is called double indemnity.

Doesn't matter if it is two different people doing it.

As there would be dispute over 3rd party liability for a start.

Hezlos hit the nail on the head. You can insure a car legally owned by somebody else with your father as a named driver as long as you declare it, have done so myself in slightly different circumstances.

bowlhead99

bigjl wrote: »

You can't insure the same car twice

It is called double indemnity.

Doesn't matter if it is two different people doing it.

As there would be dispute over 3rd party liability for a start.

Yes you can insure the same car (or other item) on more than one policy, though I believe you may have the wrong term.

It is not illegal. You are right, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread there would be clear potential for dispute over liability and administrative ownership when there came to be a claim and it would be a faff, as well as expensive. It is naive to think it could not exist.

Most policies will state that in the event that a claim is also covered by another policy they will only pay their share. So an example would be, if you have car insurance running to the end of June but you buy another policy insuring the car from the start of June because you got your dates wrong, you have not broken a law of the land. You just accidentally have more than one policy covering the same thing at the same time.

However, if you crash your £10,000 car into a £90,000 Aston on 15 June, you cannot claim £10,000 for yourself and £90,000 for the third party from both insurers and generate a spare £100k total in the process. Instead, each would seek to only bear their fair share of the £10,000 and £90,000 claims. It might be that one is a TPFT policy and one fully comp, in which case they would share the £90k TP claim between them and then the fully comp insurance (being the only valid insurance on the £10,000 risk) would cover that bit in its entirety.

For claims other than the car itself, car insurers are so keen to avoid this sort of shared responsibility nonsense that they will just flat refuse to cover the risk if another policy already covers it. For example my admiral group car policy says that within a sports equipment and other personal property claim, they are not covering me for any property covered by another policy. So for example if my suitcase is covered by my house insurance and holiday insurance on the way to the airport, my car insurance policy will not cover the suitcase at all; they are not going to try to be a second or third wheel in the process.

So quite clearly in the world of insurance you can have the same car or the same item covered by multiple insurers but they will certainly have a view on how that translates into who pays what if anything in the event of a claim.

lazer-zxr

rs65 wrote: »

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

I just wanted to make sure both drivers were fully comp. But for my use, I need business use aswell.

bowlhead99

lazer-zxr wrote: »

I just wanted to make sure both drivers were fully comp. But for my use, I need business use aswell.

Easy solution then, insure it yourself fully comp for business use and name him as a driver who also needs to be able to drive it fully comp.

While it is possible to insure a car which is not owned by you, insurance companies would like it if you are able to say yes, I'm the main owner, registered keeper and main driver - it makes things simpler and simple sometimes equals cheaper. Obviously though, you would need to consider whether actually your father wants you to own the asset because that has its own implications for other things in your lives. For example when you are bankrupt and the creditors come round the bailiffs will seize your assets but not his. And giving away a car now will change the size of his estate for inheritance tax purposes. And if he is giving away his nearly-new car as a gift and then claiming poverty and needing to claim benefits or for care, the relevant govt department or local authority might not be too happy.

But whether or not you transfer the ownership, you pretty much had your answer in the first couple of posts, hopefully.