Insurance Question

Quaver

I was just reading another thread there where people were saying that if an Insurance Company finds out that e.g. I have my car in my mother's name, but I am really the main user, then they can refuse to cover in case of a claim. Is this a clause in insurance contracts? Does anyone have any experience of them actually refusing a claim on this basis?

Thanks in advance for you replies!

EPM

think about it. You are saying person a is the main driver and person b is in reality the main driver. If they can prove this than that is essentially breach of contract so yup, they can tell ya to FRO alright...

Anan1

It's definitely a clause, you'll have lied when they ask for the main driver on the form. I've never been stupid enough to pay for insurance that mightn't pay out, and so have no experience of the outcome.;)

Quaver

But has anyone ever actually heard of this happening? It seems to me to be a bit of an urban myth.

An it's not just parent/learner child, most couples with one car will have it in one persons name, when in reality one person uses it more than the other.

Guy:Incognito

Quaver wrote: »

But has anyone ever actually heard of this happening? It seems to me to be a bit of an urban myth.

An it's not just parent/learner child, most couples with one car will have it in one persons name, when in reality one person uses it more than the other.

The only reason you would have your mother as the main insurer of your car is to make it cheaper. Thats lieing and making false declarations on an insrance document.

In the couples case, why would it not be insured int he main users name?

Quaver

I appreciate that it could be construed as making a false declaration etc., but it's very rarely that clear cut.

So no-one has ever experienced a company refusing to insure on these grounds? It's not that easy to get out of an insurance contract.

Guy:Incognito

Quaver wrote: »

I appreciate that it could be construed as making a false declaration etc., but it's very rarely that clear cut.
.

Nothing to be contrued in any way. It's black and white. If you have a car and put your mother, r anyone else, down as the main driver, while you, the real main driver, is down as a named driver, thats makign a false declaration. As I said, the only reason to do it that way is to get it cheaper, which is blatent lieing.

cooperguy

Of coarse they have to prove that you were the main driver even though you were only a secondary driver on the contract. Once they do that though they wont be paying up.

Quaver

That's virtually impossible to prove though I reckon.

I'm just more curious to see if this has ever happened.

Anan1

Quaver wrote: »

That's virtually impossible to prove though I reckon.

You reckon wrong - it would be quite easy for an ins co to prove it to the satisfaction of a judge. Honestly, do you think ins cos are stupid? Uncovering cases of fraud is their business, they do it every day. It's a win-win situation for them, they get the premium and they don't have to pay out if you have a claim. Don't be a mug.

Leeside

Quaver wrote: »

That's virtually impossible to prove though I reckon.

I'm just more curious to see if this has ever happened.

Insurance companies frequently refuse to pay claims due to non disclosure of material fact and in your example it could be construed as fraud.

You say it would be impossible to prove. I take it therefore that you would be prepared to say that your mother was the main driver if questioned about it under oath in court. And your mother would support your claim? Thats a very high risk strategy

Insurers would not hesitate to take such a case to court if there was a large amount at stake.

Quaver

Don't worry, I'm not planning on fighting an Insurance Company.

I was more wondering if anyone knows where this has actually happened, and no-one has ever heard of it.

seclachi

I was a named driver for ages on my dads policy, started out just for learning, then used it a bit for college. I only recently realised that being a named driver and doing such a milage was stupid. Its pretty logical for the insurance company to investiage if a named driver makes a claim. If you work too far to walk or cant take a bus like me, they are going to put 2 and 2 together and have a pretty solid claim that your have the car all day and are the main driver.

Delta Kilo

I was the poster in the other thread and yes, they will find out. You don't realise how much money you could get from insurance if you are involved in an accident. A cousin of mine insured his car this way and had an accident in which he was seriously injured, nearly 4 months in hospital plus time in rehabilitation clinic. Thankfully, he is ok now. He got €94,000 from the insurance. About a month later he got a letter from the ins co. again to tell him that they were taking him to court (the high court) for insurance fraud. They found out that his mother was not the main driver (they had surveillance on him and his family and discovered afterwards that his mother never drove the car as she had another car, in another policy with a separate company). They wanted every penny of the 94k back.

They WILL find out. They WILL look for any excuse not to pay up. We are talking serious sheckles here. It is worth an insurance companies time and money to assign private investigators etc to find an excuse. Apparently, they find it really suspicious if a mother is insuring a civic type R, or something of that nature, with her 17 year old son as a named driver!

Quaver

Delta Kilo, that is a rather extreme case, €94k and clearly the mother never used the car. Most cases I know of are less clear cut.

I know Insurance Companies will look for excuses not to pay up, but that doesn't mean they will be successful. Did they get the 94k back?

L1011

+1 on the above; if there is a large payout made / to be made and there are ANY ways the insurers can avoid paying it, they will. 'fronting' someone else as the main driver is insurance fraud.

Quaver

MYOB wrote: »

+1 on the above; if there is a large payout made / to be made and there are ANY ways the insurers can avoid paying it, they will. 'fronting' someone else as the main driver is insurance fraud.

As I said, I am aware of all that, but no-one has yet answered my question as to if this has ever been successfully done by the Insurance Company on these grounds?

Delta Kilo

Quaver wrote: »

Delta Kilo, that is a rather extreme case, €94k and clearly the mother never used the car. Most cases I know of are less clear cut.

I know Insurance Companies will look for excuses not to pay up, but that doesn't mean they will be successful. Did they get the 94k back?

Still going through the courts and it is expensive... Solicitor, barrister and garda reports and witnesses. Its messy and going to cost a fortune if he loses, which he probably will. His solicitor told him to agree to pay back the money because they have a load of proof on him.

It may be an extreme case but it was an extreme accident. You don't know how bad an accident it is going to be if you do have an accident. Most people will not go through with a claim and just pay up out of their own pocket if it is relatively minor as they do not want to affect their NCB etc. He made a claim because his car was totaled and he didn't realise that being a named driver even though he was the main driver was illegal.

L1011

Quaver wrote: »

As I said, I am aware of all that, but no-one has yet answered my question as to if this has ever been successfully done by the Insurance Company on these grounds?

Yes. My managers partner is an assessor for one of the larger insurance firms and they've rejected a number of claims in his area because of it.

Guy:Incognito

Quaver wrote: »

As I said, I am aware of all that, but no-one has yet answered my question as to if this has ever been successfully done by the Insurance Company on these grounds?

Delta Kilo did.

Quaver

Thanks MYOB, I was just wondering as it seemed to me to be one of those things that everyone always talks about, but never actually happens.

And SteKelly, Delta Kilo said that they were trying to get the money back. They haven't yet succeeded as I understood it.

Guy:Incognito

Quaver wrote: »

And SteKelly, Delta Kilo said that they were trying to get the money back. They haven't yet succeeded as I understood it.

Is that a position you'd like to be in regardless?

Quaver

Stekelly wrote: »

Is that a position you'd like to be in regardless?

As I said before, I'm not planning on fighting an Insurance Company over this! I was more curious as to whether it actually happens or not!

Anan1

Quaver wrote: »

As I said before, I'm not planning on fighting an Insurance Company over this! I was more curious as to whether it actually happens or not!

And you've been told more than once, by more than one poster, that it does.

January

Quaver wrote: »

But has anyone ever actually heard of this happening? It seems to me to be a bit of an urban myth.

An it's not just parent/learner child, most couples with one car will have it in one persons name, when in reality one person uses it more than the other.

Of course they would, for instance if you bought a car, registered it in your name, yet had your mother/father as the main driver and you as the named driver, that'll already raise alarm bells. Sometimes they ask you who is the registered owner of the vehicle.

In the case of spouses registering cars in one name yet insuring in the other they just take it as both spouses bought the car but you can't register it in both names so one took ownership yet the other might drive it more often.