Policy null and void

David09

My friend was unfortunate recently to have an 02 vw polo stolen, wrecked and totally burnt out.

He received another kick in the teeth today, this time from the insurance company.
The car was initially bought for his daughter, but ended up being shared 50/50 by him and his daughter. The car was in her name and the policy was his with her as a named driver.

As the car was insured for fire and theft, he went about making a claim, only to be informed that his claim was null and void as was his policy, due to the fact the car wasn't in his name, despite being owned and paid for by him.

Has he any recourse? As it stands, he's lost the car to some 15yr old delinquent scum and now has no insurance as they've cancelled it.

CiniO

What insurance company was he with?
What do they policy say about having a car registered into daughters name>?

David09

Axa.

He had the car 18 months before it was stolen and cannot remember what was asked when the policy was taken out. As far as he is concerned, he would have got the name changed on the licencing cert if required, but it was never an issue when insuring initially.

Atomic Pineapple

You cant insure anything that you don't have a vested interest in, since he didn't own the car (it not being in his name) he cant have insurance on it.

So if the car was in his daughters name and he was insured and the owner and main driver of the car then the insurance is rightfully void I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter what he was asked, its up to him to inform the insurer's.

David09

draffodx wrote: »

You cant insure anything that you don't have a vested interest in, since he didn't own the car (it not being in his name) he cant have insurance on it.

So if the car was in his daughters name and he was insured and the owner and main driver of the car then the insurance is rightfully void I'm afraid.

I hear you, but would the fact that he bought and paid for it not matter?

In general, does the licencing cert imply that the person named is the legal rightful owner?

Atomic Pineapple

David09 wrote: »

I hear you, but would the fact that he bought and paid for it not matter?

In general, does the licencing cert imply that the person named is the legal rightful owner?

Whoever is registered as the cars owner is the only person that can take on a policy on it, doesn't matter who bought it.

CiniO

draffodx wrote: »

Whoever is registered as the cars owner is the only person that can take on a policy on it, doesn't matter who bought it.

That's not entirely true, as lot's of insurance companies allow a spouse or partner of the insured to be a registered owner.

but43r

David09 wrote: »

I hear you, but would the fact that he bought and paid for it not matter?

In general, does the licencing cert imply that the person named is the legal rightful owner?

It doesn't. You don't have to be the registered owner to be the owner of the car (I'm not sure how that works).

Surely insurance company asked him who is the registered owner of the car when taking out the insurance? Why would they insure him and then void the insurance when a claim is made? That doesn't sound right...

unkel

David09 wrote: »

The car was initially bought for his daughter, but ended up being shared 50/50 by him and his daughter. The car was in her name and the policy was his with her as a named driver.

If the car was supposed to be for his daughters use, and it was registered to her, she should have insured it.

I'm afraid the insurance companies have become a bit wiser about many young (mostly male!) drivers avoiding insurance loading by having their cars insured by their parents with them as named drivers...

In any case, never be economical with the truth to your insurer. It will come back to bite ya...

kdobey

It just so happens that my wife is the registered owner of both our cars - just because she happened to be the one that picked it up. I drive one and she drives the other. Does this mean my policy is void??

CiniO

David09 wrote: »

I hear you, but would the fact that he bought and paid for it not matter?

In general, does the licencing cert imply that the person named is the legal rightful owner?

OK.
Few facts.
From AXA policy.
Everywhere in the policy, when they describe a car which was insured they use a form "your car".
This is defined at the top of policy:

Your car – Any motor car whose registration number appears on a valid
certificate of insurance under this policy.

Nothing more is mentioned in the policy about in whose name the car was registered.

If he got policy online, he had to accept some assumptions. One of the is:

You or your spouse or partner is the owner or registered owner of the Car

If he got a policy through a broker or phone, was he asked a question in whose name car was registered?
If not everything should be on his side.

Just get a good solicitor, and go to court against insurance company.

CiniO

kdobey wrote: »

It just so happens that my wife is the registered owner of both our cars - just because she happened to be the one that picked it up. I drive one and she drives the other. Does this mean my policy is void??

Depends on the policy, and what were you asked when you were obtaining that policy.

Delancey

This is not the first time someone has posted in this forum with this exact issue.

Senna

Any time i get an insurance quote, i'm always asked if i'm the registered owner of the car i'm trying to insure. I'd find it very hard to believe that this person wasn't asked this.

Needler

Ah sh1te hard luck lad, typical insurance companies for you. A real shame. Polo is a nice car too

Pdfile

i'd of thought their would be some common law jurisdiction on the basis that he bought the car for his daughter and drive it himself too..

Henry Ford III

Get a copy of the proposal form for clarity.

If there wasn't insurable interest due to a less than accurate disclosure the policy was voidable.

Padraig Mor

C'mon, they were trying to scam the insurance company by putting the policy in his name and they got caught out... And yes, every insurance proposal form I've come across makes the assumption that the policy holder owns the car.

David09

David09 wrote: »

.........
...............The car was initially bought for his daughter, but ended up being shared 50/50 by him and his daughter. The car was in her name and the policy was his with her as a named driver.

................

As the policy is void and he is with them 18 months will they not be refunding the 2 years premium? Surely that's worth the guts of the car anyway. Also if the car was initially bought for the daughter surely she would have needed her own insurance policy at the time? When it ended up being used 50/50 then perhaps her being a named driver under her ole lad may have been the correct course of action but only if a transfer of owenership of the car also followed.

Tbh, and nothing against yourself David, but the bit I've highlighted in bold to me sounds like fraudulent bullsh1t to get cheap insurance, I can't really see the issue he has. I reckon he was trying to save a few quid and it backfired.

Out of interest does he have another insurance policy on another vehicle ?

maidhc

I would agree with the posters who state that not being registered owner does not mean you do not own the car, they are completely seperate concepts.

The reality is here the insc co have not been prejudiced, in particular becuase the car was destroyed by an unrelated third party.

The only fraudulent bullsh1t spoken I find generally comes from insurance companies, and some of them (who shall remain nameless) do act above the law at times.

Mr Benevolent

Insurable interest, a cornerstone of the industry. No comeback I'm afraid, and cancelled insurance will be VERY bad for his premiums. It's the reason I put the car into my name even though I knew I'd only have it for a few months.

furtzy

Doing the annual insurance ring around at the moment and everyone of them asked if I was the registered owner as is the norm.

Does sound like it was the old insure the childs car in my name for a cheaper price scam

Anan1

Who had he nominated as the main driver on this policy? Like RoverJames, i'd like to know whether he had another car?

Henry Ford III

Confab wrote: »

Insurable interest, a cornerstone of the industry. No comeback I'm afraid, and cancelled insurance will be VERY bad for his premiums. It's the reason I put the car into my name even though I knew I'd only have it for a few months.

Yes and I agree that the knock on effects will have a potentially dramatic effect on other policies.

Gophur

David09 wrote: »

I hear you, but would the fact that he bought and paid for it not matter?

In general, does the licencing cert imply that the person named is the legal rightful owner?

I bought and paid for a nice car that's sitting outside.

Try telling my wife the car is not hers? It is registered in her name.

Henry Ford III

Gophur wrote: »

I bought and paid for a nice car that's sitting outside.

Try telling my wife the car is not hers? It is registered in her name.

Spouses are clearly an exception in all this. The concept of communal funds etc.

It's a different story for children and folk trying to pull a fast one.

seamus

Possibly worth challenging. Family assets are pooled in insurance cases. If your daughters lives with you, regardless of what age she is, then all of her possessions are covered under your house insurance policy.

The same basis should apply to a car insurance policy in that the father has a financial interest in the car. There's also a legal point in that the person mentioned on the VLC isn't automatically the legal owner of the vehicle.

However that said, as others point out above, I've seen insurance certs/policies which state that the policyholder must be the registered owner of the vehicle. If this is not the case, then any fire & theft insurance on the vehicle does not have to be honoured.

Seperate

RoverJames wrote: »

As the policy is void and he is with them 18 months will they not be refunding the 2 years premium? Surely that's worth the guts of the car anyway.

This is what I was thinking after the OP!

mathepac

David09 wrote: »

... In general, does the licencing cert imply that the person named is the legal rightful owner?

No, it does not, and never has.

There is a distinction between being the registered owner (or registered keeper in the UK) and being the beneficial owner; insurance companies specifically ask about the registered owner.

If I buy a car on HP for example, I will be the registered owner but until such time as I pay off the HP, the finance company is the beneficial owner

Atomic Pineapple

CiniO wrote: »

That's not entirely true, as lot's of insurance companies allow a spouse or partner of the insured to be a registered owner.

Thats because as a spouse you are legally twinned as to say and both have an insurable interest in the car, as a father and daughter this is not the case.

Bruthal

Seperate wrote: »

This is what I was thinking after the OP!

Are the insurance company saying the whole policy was null and void? If it had been a third party claim they would probably have to pay out, so its the fire and theft part thats being claimed and refused.

But if the insurance company are claiming the entire policy was void, then they should refund alright. They will just do the usual, take peoples money, and only tell them when the insurance is claimed through an event that the insurance was covering, that their policy was void.

partyatmygaff

robbie7730 wrote: »

Are the insurance company saying the whole policy was null and void? If it had been a third party claim they would probably have to pay out, so its the fire and theft part thats being claimed and refused.

But if the insurance company are claiming the entire policy was void, then they should refund alright. They will just do the usual, take peoples money, and only tell them when the insurance is claimed through an event that the insurance was covering, that their policy was void.

It's only null and void if you want to make a claim. If you want to make a payment, it's all perfectly fine and above board.

Owen

draffodx wrote: »

You cant insure anything that you don't have a vested interest in, since he didn't own the car (it not being in his name) he cant have insurance on it.

You definitely can. We had this issue with a number of insurance companies when gifting cars to celebrities for a year - most would trawl this line out, but some were more than willing to do it.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Cant the daughter just claim instead?

Horgan

Horgan wrote: »

Cant the daughter just claim instead?

Ingenius :pac:

Bruthal

Horgan wrote: »

Cant the daughter just claim instead?

Looks like the registered owner has to be the main policy holder.

Henry Ford III

Horgan wrote: »

Cant the daughter just claim instead?

Only the insured can make a claim. A named driver cannot.

Cookie_Monster

So a few people have mentioned that the policy being void means you should be able to get your money back off them for the last two years. Fair nuff, but would the insurance company not simply hand this info to the Gardai under those circumstances, proving you weren't insured and getting you done for driving without insurance?
Or would the Gardai still need to physically catch you themselves?

Bruthal

Padraig Mor wrote: »

C'mon, they were trying to scam the insurance company by putting the policy in his name and they got caught out... And yes, every insurance proposal form I've come across makes the assumption that the policy holder owns the car.

This is a policy method brought out by insurance companies. If the father had of registered the car in his name, then it would of all been fine. So not having the car registered in his name meant it was a scam? Of course this is done to get cheaper insurance, but insurance companies do things to get as much money as they can, but thats perfectly ok because they can do what they like.

Bruthal

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So a few people have mentioned that the policy being void means you should be able to get your money back off them for the last two years. Fair nuff, but would the insurance company not simply hand this info to the Gardai under those circumstances, proving you weren't insured and getting you done for driving without insurance?
Or would the Gardai still need to physically catch you themselves?

They probably had 3rd party if it came to a claim from an accident. This claim was for theft and burnt out. But they were paying their money for insurance in good faith, not paying it knowing they were not insured. It was just a technicality on who was registered on the car. There are probably many others in a similar situation.

Henry Ford III

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So a few people have mentioned that the policy being void means you should be able to get your money back off them for the last two years. Fair nuff, but would the insurance company not simply hand this info to the Gardai under those circumstances, proving you weren't insured and getting you done for driving without insurance?
Or would the Gardai still need to physically catch you themselves?

No. Insurer would have been on cover in accordance with the incorrect proposal form data.

When they realised the policy was voidable they would be within their rights to do that and refund premiums. In other words the cover never existed.

If the Gardai hadn't prosecuted before that point (a windscreen disc would have looked in order) there's no case to answer.

Atomic Pineapple

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You definitely can. We had this issue with a number of insurance companies when gifting cars to celebrities for a year - most would trawl this line out, but some were more than willing to do it.

Interesting, did anyone ever have to actually make a claim?

Henry Ford III

draffodx wrote: »

Interesting, did anyone ever have to actually make a claim?

You can transfer your own cover to somebody else's vehicle. I did so recently when renting a van.

seamus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So a few people have mentioned that the policy being void means you should be able to get your money back off them for the last two years. Fair nuff, but would the insurance company not simply hand this info to the Gardai under those circumstances, proving you weren't insured and getting you done for driving without insurance?
Or would the Gardai still need to physically catch you themselves?

There's an academic discussion on this in the Legal Discussion forum at the moment.

The basis of the insurance requirement is to protect 3rd parties in the event of an accident. With that in mind, it's set up in such a way that once an insurer has agreed to insure you and provided a certificate of insurance, then they are bound by law to pay all 3rd-party costs against you, provided that the person driving is mentioned on the certificate, that the car being driven is covered by the certificate and the use (business/personal) is covered by the certificate. If an insurer could use technicalities to weasal out of it, the 3rd party would be left fighting for their costs. Rather, the system is set up so that the 3rd party is looked after, and the insurance company then has to do the fighting when technicalities arise.

The certificate of insurance issued by the insurer is a specific legally-approved document which only relates to your 3rd party liabilities. Fire & Theft, Comprehensive, etc are separate parts of the insurance contract, not affected by or included on the certificate of motor insurance.

Once you are in possession of a cert. of motor insurance which has not expired and has not been currently cancelled, then the insurer mentioned on the certificate is required to cover you. This then satisfies the driver's obligations under section 56 of the RTA, to be covered or guaranteed against all costs. Even if the policy is later cancelled, you were still insured on the date that the accident happened and therefore not breaking the law.

The contract of insurance is a different matter and if you are found in breach of that, the insurer can refuse to pay out non-3rd party claims and can also sue you for any costs arising from 3rd party claims.

The only ways that an insurer can get out of paying 3rd party claims is to show that the policy was cancelled or expired on the date of the accident, or that the driver, car or use is not stated on the insurance certificate.

You can of course take out 3rd party cover for yourself on someone else's vehicle, since the insurable interest is you, not the vehicle. Many companies are reluctant or refuse to do this though.

Henry Ford III

seamus wrote: »

There's an academic discussion on this in the Legal Discussion forum at the moment.

The basis of the insurance requirement is to protect 3rd parties in the event of an accident. With that in mind, it's set up in such a way that once an insurer has agreed to insure you and provided a certificate of insurance, then they are bound by law to pay all 3rd-party costs against you, provided that the person driving is mentioned on the certificate, that the car being driven is covered by the certificate and the use (business/personal) is covered by the certificate. If an insurer could use technicalities to weasal out of it, the 3rd party would be left fighting for their costs. Rather, the system is set up so that the 3rd party is looked after, and the insurance company then has to do the fighting when technicalities arise.

The certificate of insurance issued by the insurer is a specific legally-approved document which only relates to your 3rd party liabilities. Fire & Theft, Comprehensive, etc are separate parts of the insurance contract, not affected by or included on the certificate of motor insurance.

Once you are in possession of a cert. of motor insurance which has not expired and has not been currently cancelled, then the insurer mentioned on the certificate is required to cover you. This then satisfies the driver's obligations under section 56 of the RTA, to be covered or guaranteed against all costs. Even if the policy is later cancelled, you were still insured on the date that the accident happened and therefore not breaking the law.

The contract of insurance is a different matter and if you are found in breach of that, the insurer can refuse to pay out non-3rd party claims and can also sue you for any costs arising from 3rd party claims.

The only ways that an insurer can get out of paying 3rd party claims is to show that the policy was cancelled or expired on the date of the accident, or that the driver, car or use is not stated on the insurance certificate.

You can of course take out 3rd party cover for yourself on someone else's vehicle, since the insurable interest is you, not the vehicle. Many companies are reluctant or refuse to do this though.

That all sounds fine and dandy.

What's the position if the policy was written on the basis of undisclosed material information? For example a drunk driving ban, or similar? What if the car was heavily modified "non turbo on log book" but in reality a highly tuned turbo charged engine, in a car with a roll cage, racing seats and suspension?

Would 3rd party claims still be ok even though insurance was obtained through deception?

Cookie_Monster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Would 3rd party claims still be ok even though insurance was obtained through deception?

presumably the insurance company would still pay out and then go after and sue you to recover those costs, or simply refer it to MIBI to deal with to ensure the 3rd party is still fully compensated and not affected.

seamus

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Would 3rd party claims still be ok even though insurance was obtained through deception?

Drink-driving ban, no, because the cert also contains a clause that the person must hold (or have held) a driving licence and not be disqualified from holding such.

In the UK, if someone is found driving without a licence or while banned, they are routinely charged with driving without insurance on top of that, because any insurance cert is invalid. I'm not sure what the story is here.

However in the case of a heavily modified vehicle, provided that the vehicle is the same one mentioned on the certificate of insurance, then yes the person is legally insured for the purposes of the road traffic act.

MugMugs

AXA policy wrote:

You must not act in a fraudulent way.
We will take the action shown below if you or anyone acting
for you:
- fails to reveal or hides a fact that is likely to influence
whether or not we accept your proposal, your renewal, or
any adjustment to the policy;
- fails to reveal or hides a fact that is likely to influence the
cover we provide;

The consequence

AXA policy wrote:

This action applies as well as our other rights
- We will not pay a claim.
- We will not pay any other claim which has been or will be made under
the policy.
We may declare the policy void (in other words, we can treat it as if it has
never existed).

Then you have the other factor.

You cannot insure and or claim for something which does not belong to you. I understand your whole situation OP however put it in a different way for you to get your teeth around.

You insure MY car... a total stranger. Somebody comes along and steals it.... Should you be allowed claim for the loss that I have incurred ?

In essence, the claim was either going to be declined due to "No Insurable Interest" or the Policy cancelled back to inception due to non disclosure of a material fact.

The only upshot of this is that you get the premiums paid for the past 18 months back.

You can find the AXA docs all here

MugMugs

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Would 3rd party claims still be ok even though insurance was obtained through deception?

The insurer is obliged to deal with any Third Party loss as "Insurer Concerned"

The Insurer may choose to recover all third party costs from the Policyholder once the claim has been settled. It's unusual that they do that though but has happened.

David09

Padraig Mor wrote: »

C'mon, they were trying to scam the insurance company by putting the policy in his name and they got caught out... And yes, every insurance proposal form I've come across makes the assumption that the policy holder owns the car.

Absolutely not, despite what it may look like. The car was shared between him and the daughter 50/50, if anything he used it more than the daughter as "his own" car was shared between his wife and two sons.

He is the type of person who is honest and does everything "by the book". He was very shocked when he received the letters through the post and asked me for my advice.

David09

RoverJames wrote: »

As the policy is void and he is with them 18 months will they not be refunding the 2 years premium? Surely that's worth the guts of the car anyway. Also if the car was initially bought for the daughter surely she would have needed her own insurance policy at the time? When it ended up being used 50/50 then perhaps her being a named driver under her ole lad may have been the correct course of action but only if a transfer of owenership of the car also followed.

Tbh, and nothing against yourself David, but the bit I've highlighted in bold to me sounds like fraudulent bullsh1t to get cheap insurance, I can't really see the issue he has. I reckon he was trying to save a few quid and it backfired.

Out of interest does he have another insurance policy on another vehicle ?

When the car was bought initially, before it was ever insured, it was intended as a car for his daughter. Therefore, when buying it it was bought in her name. The car wasn't insured or driven immediately and after a short while he took out his own insurance policy on it with his daughter added as named driver.
He has another car of his own, but it is shared between his wife and two sons. The polo was a cheap backup car for him and a motor that his daughter could use to learn to drive in.
That's a good point about the two year's refund. It would more than cover the cost of losing the car.