Unusual insurance issue.

Duiske

Guys, a friend recently had an accident and is having issues with her insurance company. The situation is she has two car's, car "A" she drives herself with her boyfriend a named driver on the policy. She had her policy/NCB mirrored by another company on car "B", which is used mainly by her boyfriend.
She had an accident recently in car "A", got her car fixed at one of the insurance companies approved repairers, and thought that that would be the end of the story. But she got a letter today from the company asking her for the policy details from car "B", and stating that half the repair costs will have to be claimed from car "B"s insurer.
Has anyone ever heard of an insurance company doing this ?. I understand that the mirroring of NCB onto a second car is a relatively new thing in Ireland, but would anyone have any thoughts on why the insurance company feel car "b"s insurer should be 50% liable for costs ?.
She is going to call them in the morning, but would like to be a bit more informed before she does.

Cuddlesworth

If she has open driving on the other car, then yes its possible as she was insured by both company's at the time.

She will lose her NCB on both policy's regardless.

I'd ask them to provide the legislation that shows the other company was liable for the accident.

djimi

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If she has open driving on the other car, then yes its possible as she was insured by both company's at the time.

Open driving on the other car only covers other drivers to drive car B. It has nothing to do with any other cars the policy holder might be driving.

I dont see any way that car B or its insurer comes into this situation tbh. Car A has its own policy and its that policy that the claim is against. I dont see any reason whatsoever why the insurer of car B would have anything to do with it.

Duiske

I checked with her again regarding open driving. Nope, but the policy on the second car allows for the driving of other cars on a 3rd party basis. There was actually a 3rd party involved in the accident, so maybe that's why the issue has arisen ?

Cuddlesworth

djimi wrote: »

Open driving on the other car only covers other drivers to drive car B. It has nothing to do with any other cars the policy holder might be driving.

I dont see any way that car B or its insurer comes into this situation tbh. Car A has its own policy and its that policy that the claim is against. I dont see any reason whatsoever why the insurer of car B would have anything to do with it.

My mistake, I meant insured to drive other cars. I think one of my early Axa policys referred to it as open drive on other cars.

Duiske wrote: »

I checked with her again regarding open driving. Nope, but the policy on the second car allows for the driving of other cars on a 3rd party basis. There was actually a 3rd party involved in the accident, so maybe that's why the issue has arisen ?

That would be why. She was insured to drive the car on two policy's, so both are now liable in the event of a crash.

Duiske

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

That would be why. She was insured to drive the car on two policy's, so both are now liable in the event of a crash.

I've had a look at the policy for the second car, and it states she can drive other cars on a 3rd party basis, so long as the other car is not owned by her or her employer. So, as car "A" is actually owned by her, the insurer of car "B" has no liability. I'll get her to point that out to them tomorrow.

MugMugs

It's very easy. Car a covers third party loss and is involved in an accident. Insurer a pays out. Car b has a policy where the driver at the time of the accident in a is also covered to drive other cars.... In other words covers her to drive a aswell. As such, insurer b is liable for fifty percent of the accident outlay.

It's called dual indemnity and the Insurer is in their rights to do this.

mathepac

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If she has open driving on the other car, then yes its possible as she was insured by both company's at the time. ...

FFS not this "open driving" nonsense all over again. Forget about it - it has no bearing on this case relating to OP's friend.

Clearly you have not got one clue about "open driving" or arguably abou car insurance generally. Please, please, please don't add to the confusion.

djimi wrote: »

Open driving on the other car only covers other drivers to drive car B. It has nothing to do with any other cars the policy holder might be driving. ...

Ditto.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

My mistake, I meant insured to drive other cars. I think one of my early Axa policys referred to it as open drive on other cars... .

It never did, it could not have. No policy in the world ever did. It couldn't.

mathepac

MugMugs wrote: »

... It's called dual indemnity and the Insurer is in their rights to do this.

100% correct. Thanks God, insurance sanity in operation.

mik_da_man

But what about the below point?

I always thought the driving other cars extension applied to cars NOT owned by you.
So only one insurance policy would be valid?

Duiske wrote: »

I've had a look at the policy for the second car, and it states she can drive other cars on a 3rd party basis, so long as the other car is not owned by her or her employer. So, as car "A" is actually owned by her, the insurer of car "B" has no liability. I'll get her to point that out to them tomorrow.

mathepac

mik_da_man wrote: »

... I always thought the driving other cars extension applied to cars NOT owned by you. ...

She has two insurance policies and she has two cars. Why the confusion?

I'm just amazed the insurance company fell for the old "main driver on two cars
with a named driver on one". This is the stroke Hilary and Henry's Mummy and Daddy used to pull to their little darlings insured.

Duiske

mathepac wrote: »

I'm just amazed the insurance company fell for the old "main driver on two cars
with a named driver on one". This is the stroke Hilary and Henry's Mummy and Daddy used to pull to their little darlings insured.

Thanks for clearing this up guys, had not heard of dual indemnity before. And just to be clear, both insurance companies were perfectly aware that there were 2 cars insured by the same main driver, with the same named driver on both policies. Maybe it could be seen as a "stroke", as described in the quote above, but it seems to be a "stroke" that the insurance companies are more than happy to go along with as long as they can pocket the premiums.

edit :

MugMugs wrote: »

Car b has a policy where the driver at the time of the accident in a is also covered to drive other cars.... In other words covers her to drive a aswell.

Yes, she was covered to drive other cars, but not cars which she owned. So she was not covered to drive car A under car B's policy.

SRFC

which company is this that will mirror the insurance pm me the name if you would please


thanks.

Duiske

SRFC wrote: »

which company is this that will mirror the insurance pm me the name if you would please
thanks.

Just sent those details.