Motor Claim: Whose bonus is affected?

Manuel

Hi,
I crashed my spouse's car, causing third party damage.
The claim was made against spouse's insurance, as I was named driver on spouse's policy.

During the claim procedure, I was asked if I myself had my own insurance on my car and was insured to drive other cars. I said I was, so spouse's Insurer pursued my Insurer who then coughed up 50% of the cost of the claim.


Whose No Claims Bonus is affected? Hers, mine or both???


Hope someone can help ....

Thanks!
/M.

mickdw

Both unfortunately.

I'm actually beginning to think having driving other cars cover is not the best idea as it allows insurers to hit 2 policies with increased premium.
I wonder could you argue that you are in fact the owner of the wife's car - for example if you were paying for the car regardless of name registered keeper. If so, the driving other cars cover shouldn't be valid as typically, that extension wont cover you on any car you actually own.

Max Power

That's a weird one. Why did they claim against your insurance when your car wasn't involved in the accident.

DylanII

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

That's a weird one. Why did they claim against your insurance when your car wasn't involved in the accident.

He must have been covered to drive other cars on his policy.

Manuel

Thanks for the quick replies.

I thought I was doing the right thing at the time. I'd never made a claim before, so I had to be guided to some degree by the broker .... I was indeed driving my wife's car at the time, so I decided to state it exactly as it happened.

In hindsight, if I had been a bit more savvy, I might have just let her make the claim against her Insurer saying she was the driver (yes, this is probably illegal, but anyway ...) ... especially if both NCBs are now affected ...

If it turns out that both our bonuses are affected, it would be a harsh lesson learned .... but one I'll put down to experience ....

Thanks.

MugMugs

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

That's a weird one. Why did they claim against your insurance when your car wasn't involved in the accident.

Because the OP has a policy to cover him to drive other people's vehicles third party.

It's called "dual indemnity" two policies covered the third party risk at the same time therefore both policies liable for 50 percent each.

Casati

MugMugs wrote: »

Because the OP has a policy to cover him to drive other people's vehicles third party.

It's called "dual indemnity" two policies covered the third party risk at the same time therefore both policies liable for 50 percent each.

and the insurance companies win on the double.

The insurance companies seem to revert to this 50:50 lark with claims in general as it means they can hit two policies bonus

oldyouth

2 policies covered the same loss
2 policies paid out an equal share of the TP's loss
2 NCB's affected because each one had a claim (unless protected)

rocky

Check that your 'driving other cars' extension excludes spouse's cars... then your bonus shouldn't be affected.

MugMugs

rocky wrote: »

Check that your 'driving other cars' extension excludes spouse's cars... then your bonus shouldn't be affected.

I've never seen this be a standard condition in a policy.

johndaman66

MugMugs wrote: »

Because the OP has a policy to cover him to drive other people's vehicles third party.

It's called "dual indemnity" two policies covered the third party risk at the same time therefore both policies liable for 50 percent each.

I didn't think it worked like that mind you but stand to be corrected. Previously my understanding was that the OP's insurer would cover the claim if his policy had the extension allowing him to drive other cars.

If the OP's spouse had comprehensive cover and was putting in a claim to her own insurer to cover damage to her vehicle then I could see how both husband and wife would loose NCB (unless protected)

That "dual indemnity" would seem a bit of a kick in the n*ts alright. I won't be too eager to drive other peoples cars on my own policy in future unless absolutely necessary...

johndaman66

rocky wrote: »

Check that your 'driving other cars' extension excludes spouse's cars... then your bonus shouldn't be affected.

If that was the case would it mean that the OP was effectively driving without insurance.....big trouble altogether for him.

rocky

johndaman66 wrote: »

If that was the case would it mean that the OP was effectively driving without insurance.....big trouble altogether for him.

No, he was named on the spouse's policy.

johndaman66

rocky wrote: »

No, he was named on the spouse's policy.

Ah sorry didn't see that.

MugMugs

johndaman66 wrote: »

I didn't think it worked like that mind you but stand to be corrected. Previously my understanding was that the OP's insurer would cover the claim if his policy had the extension allowing him to drive other cars.

If the OP's spouse had comprehensive cover and was putting in a claim to her own insurer to cover damage to her vehicle then I could see how both husband and wife would loose NCB (unless protected)

But both policies covered third party loss at the same time therefore both are liable to compensate for the risk that they covered at the time. As you're not meant to profit from Insurance, they both make an equal payment of 50% toward the risk covered.

I'll give you another example.

I go out and buy a brand new Fiat Punto. I Insure it ABC Insurance Ltd for the princely sum of 25k. I also insure it with XYZ Insurance International Ltd. Two weeks later, my vehicle is stolen and not recovered. I call both Insurers and tell them. Both begin their process of claims investigation however XYZ are more efficient and propose settlement first. They ask for the Log Book which I promptly give them. Then ABC come to me to settle and also ask for the Log Book..... "I've given it to the other insurer, just give me my cheque".

ABC would in theory, notify XYZ of their interest in this vehicle. XYZ would be within their rights to expect 50% of their outlay back from ABC and an agreement to split salvage should my lost Fiat ever show up again. They both covered the same risk.... they both pay the price abeit, 50% cheaper than it would have been for them.

CiniO

I think some insurers avoid doing this...

F.e. my policy says the following in relation to section 1 (third party cover):

Company shall not be liable in respect of:
(...)
4. Any person other than You who is insured
under another Motor Insurance Policy.

So my understanding of the above is, that if my wife (who is named driver on my policy) would cause any damage to third party by driving my car, my policy wouldn't cover her third party, as she has her own policy on her own car with permission to drive other cars.


But surely usually third party claim comes together with own car damage claim, and this would have to be covered under my policy anyway - so in general we would both loose NCB unless we wouldn't claim for damage to my car.


I also have an example which happened over a year ago when my wife indeed crashed my car. She however didn't do damage to third party - just to my car.
I had to claim for damage to my car from my policy. She was a named driver.
My NCB was affected (or at least it would be if I didn't have NCB protection).
Her NCB were not affected, but her premium was affected anyway - as she had to declare to her insurer that she caused an accident. So her policy still have full NCB, but also have accident loading (about 15% increase afair).