Car Insurance

SM746

Bit of a long one here so stick with me.

Last Monday my car was broke into in Golf Club car park. (passenger window smashed, wiring loom broke, electrics broke, laptop, ipod, watch stolen - c. 2500euro worth of damage and robbery).
Got on to insurance company and they said no problem send in claim form, they would assign assessor and that would be okay and I could get it fixed.
Got claim form back into them on Friday and got phone call that evening saying they would not pay out as I am not the registered owner of the car.

The car was given to me in February 2009 by my parents and until Friday we had no idea that I had to be the registered owner. I have looked at my policy and there is no mention of it either. It is now in the hands of my solicitor and I will not hear back until Tuesday.

I have spoke to the guards and the main dealer garage and they both agree I am the owner of the car even if I am not the registered owner and, perhaps showing a lack of knowledge of the law on their part, they said this should not even matter to my claim and to ensure I contact a good solicitor which I have done.

Just when I am waiting does anyone know anything about this situation? If the insurance company are correct then I am just happy I found out through a minor issue such as this and not in an accident.

SM746

sorry just seen the charter so feel free to delete the post PM. It is not legal advcie I am looking for (solicitor will offer that) it is basically a debate on insurance companies or grievances people may have had with them

godtabh

You have an I insurable interest in the car. What's the issue?

Delancey

Perhaps try the motoring forum ? Plenty of Insurance-related threads there.

SM746

godtabh wrote: »

You have an I insurable interest in the car. What's the issue?

so i assumed aswell but they are adamant that they will not be paying out

Oasis44

Op I work in the insurance industry and I think it's fairly straightforward - you are not the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore have No insurable interest in the car period. Transfer of ownership should have been carried out when you were given the car. You can't even get your parents to put in a new claim because your insurer knows you were driving - sorry but you've no chance of your claim being paid.

Guy:Incognito

godtabh wrote: »

You have an I insurable interest in the car. What's the issue?

How do you figure? Other than he drives it , whats his insureable interest in it?

SM746

Oasis44 wrote: »

Op I work in the insurance industry and I think it's fairly straightforward - you are not the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore have No insurable interest in the car period. Transfer of ownership should have been carried out when you were given the car. You can't even get your parents to put in a new claim because your insurer knows you were driving - sorry but you've no chance of your claim being paid.

Yeah pretty sure thats the case just happy it was in a situation such as this and not an accident. Its a bit of luck that I am grateful for. The insurance company knew what my Dad was doing in Feb 2009 and never mentioned this to him so he had no idea nor did I. I am sure their are many people out there in the same situation I was in (driving cars under paretns names and not having valid insurance)

No.2

OP, like the other posters have said, unless the policy stated that the policyholder must be the registered owner, your insurance company will most likely be relying on the doctrine of insurable interest, something which emerged in English law in the 1700s as to allow payment where no "loss" had occurred to the insured "would constitute gain, or profit, and thereby risk encouraging gambling under the guise of insurance" (See Austin Buckley's Insurance Law (2006)(2nd edition) at 130).

The thing is that although the English courts have been quite strict in the application of this principle (a sole shareholder of a company does not have insurable interest in timber owed by a company but insured in his name), the Irish courts have not followed with such a strict interpretation. In In P.J. Carrigan v Norwich Union Fire Society Ltd. & Others [1987], the courts recognised that a plaintiff enjoying what it found to be "beneficial ownership" (as oppposed to strict legal ownership) did have insurable interest and was entitled to enforce the insurance contract against the underwriter.

In your own case it might be worthy considering whether you have had sole and exclusive use of the car, paid anything for it, paid motor tax or can have any other claim to point to your having held "ownership".

Other grounds on which the insurer might seek to avoid payment on might be non-disclosure of a material fact prior to the policy being underwritten or illegality.

The non-disclosure point might emerge because the company might argue that knowing that the vehicle had a different owner than that notified would have lead to a different assessment of the risk and failure to do so has voided the policy. If you were successful with the beneficial ownership point above, this one would seem moot and it may be a non-runner in any event.

The illegality point might be raised in terms of the requirement under Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 1992, and related legislation, to register ownership of a vehicle, and the fact that you could be open to sanction for failing to notify the authorities of a change in ownership in accordance with that enactment. Prosecution of any offense committed under that legislation would be something for the relevant state entity and would not appear to make the contract of insurance void per se, while it is not necessarily the case that change in "beneficial ownership" would be something which would require notification under the act. The notification requirement might be something worth considering though in any event.

Note that you do not need to go to court necessarily to enforce any claim against the insurance company and you are entitled to bring any dispute to the Financial Services Ombudsman for no fee and do not need a solicitor to do so. The company is obliged to respond or risk having an award made against it and you are entitled to receive a "final response" from them setting out their grounds for refusal, after which you can decide to pursue the matter or not.

godtabh

My girlfriend is insured on my car that is registered in my name.

If something happened while she is driving I'd full expect it to be covered under insurance. She has an insurable interest but isn't the registered owner.

What level of insurance do you have op?

Shelflife

If they are saying that he had no insurable interest then surely they will have to refund him all his premiums from when he started insuring the car,

they cant take the premium and then say that hes not insured.

Guy:Incognito

godtabh wrote: »

My girlfriend is insured on my car that is registered in my name.

If something happened while she is driving I'd full expect it to be covered under insurance. She has an insurable interest but isn't the registered owner.

What level of insurance do you have op?

How does she have an insureable interest?

Shelflife wrote: »

If they are saying that he had no insurable interest then surely they will have to refund him all his premiums from when he started insuring the car,

they cant take the premium and then say that hes not insured.

If its in the assumptions section that most peopel tick the box and go next, he would have agreed that he must have an insurable interest. Just like lots of things, like sayign you have a full licence when you dont, insurance companies take your word for it, until something goes wrong.............

sausages79

OP - did the insurance company ask you were you the owner when selling you the insurance?
You are not an insuance expert so should not be expected to know that you needed to be the official owner.
Ask for a transcript of all your calls and correspondance with the company, and remind them they had a duty to ask the correct questions when selling you the policy.
For such a small claim I would be surprised if they didnt just pay out if you go down this route - forget about the solicitor for the moment.
Best of luck

SM746

Cheers for the updates lads. I have fully comprehensive insurance and have done since February 2009. I have paid for work on the car, have paid for all the servicing of the vehicle, paid for the taxing of the car and paid for the car to go through its first NCT last month. Basically any work done on the car since my parents bought it for me has been done by me. Il find out tomorrow or Wednesday what the insurance company stance is but they seemed adamant on Friday they would not be paying out. As I said I was talking to and showed my policy to the guards and main dealer on Friday (they were both surprised by the stance of Insurer) and the solicitor I deal with looked over it and is adamant I have a case so that will be the next step by the looks of things

MagicSean

I thought most car policies had something in them to say that the owner need not be the actual registered owner.

Op if they refuse you should go to the insurance ombudsman with proof of your interest in the car. Maybe you could also get a solicitors letter to confirm your father passed ownership to you.

SM746

sausages79 wrote: »

OP - did the insurance company ask you were you the owner when selling you the insurance?
You are not an insuance expert so should not be expected to know that you needed to be the official owner.
Ask for a transcript of all your calls and correspondance with the company, and remind them they had a duty to ask the correct questions when selling you the policy.
For such a small claim I would be surprised if they didnt just pay out if you go down this route - forget about the solicitor for the moment.
Best of luck

yeah im assuming they did but I was the 'owner' and have been since I got the car. Didn't realise through our own stupidity that the registered owner had to be changed. Solicitor costing nothing as it through my Dad's company so I would feel safer with some legal advice at the moment to be honest as I know nothing about the industry

Jack_Elle

godtabh wrote: »

My girlfriend is insured on my car that is registered in my name.

If something happened while she is driving I'd full expect it to be covered under insurance. She has an insurable interest but isn't the registered owner.

What level of insurance do you have op?

Thats a different case altogether because she is named on the policy as a driver but you are the registered owner and the vehicle is in your name so therefore you have a financial / legal right on this vehicle.

The fact here is that this person doesnt have the vehicle in his name which unfortunately means he cannot claim against financial loss for it.

Its a lesson learnt at the end of the day. Its nothing anyone with no insurance training would really think about and its not up to the insurance company to tell client's that the vehicle should be registered in their name - its the law really and why wouldnt you put a vehicle that you now rightly own into your name?

Jack_Elle

Quote:
Originally Posted by sausages79
OP - did the insurance company ask you were you the owner when selling you the insurance?
You are not an insuance expert so should not be expected to know that you needed to be the official owner.
Ask for a transcript of all your calls and correspondance with the company, and remind them they had a duty to ask the correct questions when selling you the policy.
For such a small claim I would be surprised if they didnt just pay out if you go down this route - forget about the solicitor for the moment.
Best of luck

SM746 wrote: »

yeah im assuming they did but I was the 'owner' and have been since I got the car. Didn't realise through our own stupidity that the registered owner had to be changed. Solicitor costing nothing as it through my Dad's company so I would feel safer with some legal advice at the moment to be honest as I know nothing about the industry

Under insurance law - it is not up to the insurance company to ask the right questions. Its also not up to the insurance company to advise the client as to the legality to do with the insurance - if you were that unsure about taking out insurance you shouldve spoken to an insurance advisor / broker to clear it up but for future reference you should note that insurance companies will never give advice on their products openly, if you hadve asked them about insurable interest then they would have had to tell you about it, but other then that. No go.

MagicSean

Jack_Elle wrote: »

you should note that insurance companies banks will never give advice on their products openly,

And that's how an industry falls into disrepute and brings trouble on itself.

kippy

Can I assume the OP has been driving illegally for the past 2+ years then and that ANY claim against him would have been not covered because of this?
Very worrying.

MagicSean

kippy wrote: »

Can I assume the OP has been driving illegally for the past 2+ years then and that ANY claim against him would have been not covered because of this?
Very worrying.

No, the insurance company would be obliged to cover him for third party claims.

NUTLEY BOY

Insurable interest arises in a large variety of ways.

What is not clear from OP is just exactly what insurable interest he claims to have.

Incidentally, the legal concept of "ownership" may well lie beyond the very narrow view that says registration in your name = ownership = insurable interest. Registered ownership certainly constitutes one type of insurable interest but it not the only type of insurable interest.

I would be most interested to see what questions were asked on the proposal form and what answers the OP gave. If this was a telephone quote I would like to see what is on the insurance company records as having been asked and what was answered.

SM746

anyone looking for an update. insurer gave the go ahead to garage to repair the car today for 1097euro agreed between assessor and garage. made them come down from their 1201 quote but nothing major. no problem with personal items either they will cover their loss too.

wazzoraybelle

SM746 wrote: »

anyone looking for an update. insurer gave the go ahead to garage to repair the car today for 1097euro agreed between assessor and garage. made them come down from their 1201 quote but nothing major. no problem with personal items either they will cover their loss too.

Well done for sticking it out!

SM746

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

Well done for sticking it out!

I think it was a case I was dealing with a young fella last week who didn't really have a clue what he was on about. The solicitor was adamant from the start, and particularly after reading and looking over my proposal form and policy booklet, that the insurer was talking rubbish. On a separate note cheers for the advice offered by everyone, some of it certainly awakened my eyes and it has ensured I will never get myself in any similar situation again.

Our man in Havana

Well done OP!

The registered owner on the VRC is not necessarily the real owner. So not being on the VRC does not mean someone does not have an insurable interest.

NUTLEY BOY

SM746 wrote: »

I think it was a case I was dealing with a young fella last week who didn't really have a clue what he was on about. The solicitor was adamant from the start, and particularly after reading and looking over my proposal form and policy booklet, that the insurer was talking rubbish. On a separate note cheers for the advice offered by everyone, some of it certainly awakened my eyes and it has ensured I will never get myself in any similar situation again.

Well done you.

I'm afraid that the experience that you have had with the insurer is typical of some of the rubbish that we are being asked to tolerate these days. I wouldn't mind if it was a cheap enterprise to insure something but these people do charge professional levels of fees for utterly amateur displays of competence and that drives me ballistic..............:mad: Rant over.:)

Jack_Elle

SM746 wrote: »

I think it was a case I was dealing with a young fella last week who didn't really have a clue what he was on about. The solicitor was adamant from the start, and particularly after reading and looking over my proposal form and policy booklet, that the insurer was talking rubbish. On a separate note cheers for the advice offered by everyone, some of it certainly awakened my eyes and it has ensured I will never get myself in any similar situation again.

Im glad they covered you in this case because you do have a relationship to the "keeper" of the vehicle. In UK law its very strict that the name the veh is in necessarily isnt the owner - theyre just the "keeper" of the vehicle. Its all goboldy gook if you dont know the industry atal atal. But most companies wont have the point of insurable interest in its policy booklet so at least you took on the company - some people would just take them at their word, no one likes to complain/fight their corner much anymore these days...

Guy:Incognito

Just leafign through the "assumptions" section on 123.ie for another thread. This line is first on the car section:

Your Car:
1.is registered in the Republic of Ireland in your name or in the name of your spouse (spouse means legally married husband/wife or legally recognised Civil Partner


I'd imagine most companies have a similar line.

Our man in Havana

They do but there is no legal basis to impose such a demand.