Additional driver query

paddyandstumpy

Quentin I'm bored of you dragging that comment out. Again.
The Underwriting principle remains the same across all lines of business. That comment specifically was about RTA law which I don't claim to know or offer advice on anymore.

If I was added to my partners car insurance and claimed, I'd declare that claim as I had an accident, but I'd not expect my partner to disclose a claim as she hadn't made one.

I'd challenge any insurer who went against that.

However, I'd answer the question asked. I'd carefully look to see where the question was asked in a way that favours me.

As part of my role I track all the question sets for all the major Broker systems in the U.K, plus then the questions asked on the aggs. I know how to play the system to my advantage and would choose the questionset that advantages me.

cajef

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

I know how to play the system to my advantage and would choose the questionset that advantages me.

So your advising people to play the system your way and risk having their policy cancelled by giving incorrect and misleading answers, not very good advice.

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Quentin I'm bored of you dragging that comment out. Again.
The Underwriting principle remains the same across all lines of business. That comment specifically was about RTA law which I don't claim to know or offer advice on anymore.

If I was added to my partners car insurance and claimed, I'd declare that claim as I had an accident, but I'd not expect my partner to disclose a claim as she hadn't made one.

I'd challenge any insurer who went against that.

However, I'd answer the question asked. I'd carefully look to see where the question was asked in a way that favours me.

As part of my role I track all the question sets for all the major Broker systems in the U.K, plus then the questions asked on the aggs. I know how to play the system to my advantage and would choose the questionset that advantages me.

Your partner would be asked about "claims" as well as accidents/incidents.


There is no question that the policyholder has a claim, irrespective of who was driving (you seem to be wrongly saying that the claim is the named drivers alone - what if the named driver wrote off the car - but who would agree the write off settlement? And who loses their no claim discount as a result of a fault claim on the policy irrespective of who was driving?)


Your advice that it's ok to "play the system" is again so dangerous.


One message that constantly is made in this forum is don't get your policy cancelled as that's bad news - anyone following your advice does risk getting their policy cancelled and any claim rejected for deliberately trying to get a reduced premium by not disclosing all claims.


Apart from the OP, there have been 6 contributors to this thread so far. You and 5 others.


The 5 others all disagree with your poor advice.


Hopefully others reading this thread will see who should be ignored!

paddyandstumpy

Ok - my final point on this...

I've just checked with one of our Motor Underwriters (who would make a call if this scenario was presented to them) and I've also checked with our CUE team over what they would expect to see disclosed and what they would persue if not disclosed.

I will state THIS IS THE VIEW FOR THE INSURER I WORK FOR AND NOT THE WHOLE OF THE MARKET.

We look at claims for the individual drivers, so if I had a claim on my partners policy and was then removed, her NCB may be affected but we wouldn't expect the claim to be disclosed if I wasn't on the risk.

Going back to my comment about "playing the system" - apologies if this sounded blas!.

I know the strict guidelines insurers are held to (if we want to know something we have to ask clear and unambiguous questions and only base acceptance and rate on what we ask/can find out from databases. If we don't ask clear questions the proposer is under no obligation to volunteer something not asked).

Therefore, if I take a scenario of CCJs as an example:
One of the big 6 Broker software house systems (used by a lot of the big broker companies) doesn't ask about CCJs.
The company I work for won't accept applications for cover where a client has had a CCJ, however if the question isn't asked, we can't decline the risk.
If we then find out about a CCJ we have to accept the risk (even though it's outside of our footprint) as the question wasn't asked.

That's what I mean about playing the system. If I ever had a CCJ I'd use a broker using this system, as the question set would work in my favour.

It's knowing little nuances like that which would give me the advantage. Hence my comment "it depends how the question is asked".

mattk_180

It would be prudent for the OP to disclose it by saying "my son had an accident whilst a named driver on my policy". However once the insurer discovers it wasn't actually the OP driving they would discard the information.


Claims will affect the NCB on the policy covering the car involved, but the individual driver's record would be the one that was tarnished. It would be unfair for someone to be penalised for an accident they were not involved in, especially when said driver who was involved is no longer apart of the risk.

forgotmyname

The claim is against the OPs insurance so yes a claim was made.

It would be unfair for a driver to be penalised, its the policy not the driver.

So if i have an accident but get the wife to phone and report it then your saying i canb say no i have not made a claim. because the wife did the paperwork for me.

mattk_180

If you want to commit fraud and then sure. No different from someone taking points for you.


Insurers aren't as harsh as to penalise someone for something they didn't do and the person who did do it no longer exists on the policy. I get what everyone is saying about "claim on your policy" to which the answer would be yes. If they ask have YOU had any accidents or claims it would be no. In both scenarios I would advise full disclosure but in both scenarios, in my experience, insurers will understand the situation and rate it accordingly. The only effect it would have if the driver was subsequently removed would be if you didn't have protected NCB and it got knocked back.


At least that's the case with insurers I've dealt with. If you go to some micky mouse comparison site insurer that wants to put your premium up because someone else crashed your car, I would advise not going with them.


Why should you have a claim listed under your own name saying you've had an accident when you perhaps weren't even in the car?

paddyandstumpy

Thanks Matt.

rs65

mattk_180 wrote: »

It would be prudent for the OP to disclose it by saying "my son had an accident whilst a named driver on my policy". However once the insurer discovers it wasn't actually the OP driving they would discard the information.


Claims will affect the NCB on the policy covering the car involved, but the individual driver's record would be the one that was tarnished. It would be unfair for someone to be penalised for an accident they were not involved in, especially when said driver who was involved is no longer apart of the risk.

I think that is the key point here. Insurers can ask whatever they want and the insured has to answer the question. If the insurer chooses to disregard a particular answer, that is their choice (and probably the correct one) but the Insureds responsibility is to answer the question, not decide what the insurer wants to know.

I would argue if the insurer will disregard the answer, then they shouldn't ask the question (or clarify their question).