proof of ownership

unholyangel

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Must, not should! If you omit to tell the insuer they can, and indeed wiil, invalidate the insurance if the find out. The basic principle is that you have to have an insurable interest. Good as it may be, MSE is not a definitive syaement of the law.

Just to clarify, its not that you need to have an insurable interest. Its that insurers think you're a higher risk, that you might take less care when driving than if you were the one to be negatively impacted by damage to the car. It could also potentially increase the costs (and definitely increase the complexity) of the claim.

Yorkshireman99

unholyangel wrote: »

Just to clarify, its not that you need to have an insurable interest. Its that insurers think you're a higher risk, that you might take less care when driving than if you were the one to be negatively impacted by damage to the car. It could also potentially increase the costs (and definitely increase the complexity) of the claim.

Sorry to say you are just wrong. If you google insurance interest you will find numerous examples of what it means. This is as good as any.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-107-6275

It is the absolutely fundamental basis of all insurance contracts. Without it the policy is void.

unholyangel

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Sorry to say you are just wrong. If you google insurance interest you will find numerous examples of what it means. This is as good as any.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-107-6275

It is the absolutely fundamental basis of all insurance contracts. Without it the policy is void.

Granted I did get my words jumbled as I meant to say you don't need to own the car to have an insurable interest, but the sentiment of what I said is correct.

Read this document (although its from the scots law commission it briefly outlines the position in scots law and then discusses the position in english law at length in detail).

Including this:

Bailees
11.52 One of the earliest extensions was for bailees,45 that is, for those who hold other
people!!!8217;s goods in their possession, with a duty to take care of them. The courts
permitted bailees to insure the goods against all perils, not simply against losses
caused by the policyholder!!!8217;s negligence.

11.53 An example is a firm of carriers which insures goods in transit. The carrier is
entitled to insure for more than their own liability to the owners. Instead, the
carrier may insure goods in its possession for their full value against all risks,
holding the proceeds in trust for the owner

The insurable interest thing is more clear in scots law than it is english. And I believe it was actually the gambling act 1845(not anything insurance related) that introduced it at a time when people were using insurance as a means of gambling. It was to stop them (for example) taking out a life insurance policy on Mrs Bloggs at 123 main street - when they'd never even said 1 word in passing to Mrs Bloggs, never mind suffering any loss upon her death. So they made wagering contracts unenforceable. But according to that article I linked, that was replaced by the gambling act 2005 which does not make the same provisions so there is uncertainty amongst professionals over how the position would be affected if at all.

Yorkshireman99

Noted! Now I understand your point. Thanks.