zurich wont insure me

I want to be added to my mothers policy, I have a provisional but I am doing the test in a month and I've never been insured before. I rang them up and they asked my age (19) and it seemed like they would insure me but then I said I have a provisional and they said they aren't insuring learners anymore since December?

Anan1

You could try ringing back and asking another rep, but other than that it is what it is.

OSI

OSI wrote: »

So, what's the question? If they're not insuring learners they're not insuring learners.

Im just asking if this is correct? I know people who are insured with them and are learners, what has made them change im wondering? and if its the case with other insurers?

bazz26

Insurance companies have limitations on what type of cars they will insure named drivers on existing policies especially named drivers with limited or no previous driving experience. This is to prevent someone young with no experience going out buying a powerful car and insuring their parent as the primary user of the car and adding themselves as a named driver, at a lower rate.

What model of car are you trying to be added as a named driver on?

peteb2

yes. its correct. And you can blame gender equalisation. If you had tried before 21st December they might have.

alternatively if your mother was on a lady drive policy - no chance! Against their criteria for that cover.

Or in her first year of insurance with Zurich - no chance! Against their criteria for first year of cover.

peteb2

peteb2 wrote: »

yes. its correct. And you can blame gender equalisation. If you had tried before 21st December they might have.

alternatively if your mother was on a lady drive policy - no chance! Against their criteria for that cover.

Or in her first year of insurance with Zurich - no chance! Against their criteria for first year of cover.

Do you think If I pass my test next month, they will then insure me then? they also said something about named drivers needing their own policy

bazz26

bazz26 wrote: »

Insurance companies have limitations on what type of cars they will insure named drivers on existing policies especially named drivers with limited or no previous driving experience. This is to prevent someone young with no experience going out buying a powerful car and insuring their parent as the primary user of the car and adding themselves as a named driver, at a lower rate.

What model of car are you trying to be added as a named driver on?

its only a 1 litre toyota yaris

Cee-Jay-Cee

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

Im just asking if this is correct? I know people who are insured with them and are learners, what has made them change im wondering? and if its the case with other insurers?

They probably took their policies out prior to December and so got covered. They have changed their conditions and unfortunately that effects you. Not much you can do about it to be honest. Wait till you get your full license and try again, hopefully it's only a few weeks to wait.

peteb2

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

Do you think If I pass my test next month, they will then insure me then? they also said something about named drivers needing their own policy

Nope. you just answered your own question there with them saying you would have to have your own policy. I gather by that, that you are a male trying to get added to a ladystar policy.

peteb2

peteb2 wrote: »

Nope. you just answered your own question there with them saying you would have to have your own policy. I gather by that, that you are a male trying to get added to a ladystar policy.

No Im a girl but I'm not sure what sort of policy it is. I think I'l just wait til I get a full and see what they can do then.

galwaytt

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

Do you think If I pass my test next month, they will then insure me then? they also said something about named drivers needing their own policy

...if they said that they're BS-ing you.

...ask your mother to make the call - she's their actual customer, and find out what month the policy is up. If renewed recently she doesn't have that strong a hand. But if not, there are other insurers out there.

peteb2

How do you figure that they are BS'ing her? Gender equalisation has messed all that up. Because they don't want to have to add young males, they won't add young females.

Close to renewal or not, isn't going to swing anything. Its either within their acceptance criteria or not. No one is obliged to provide cover for an additional driver.

galwaytt

peteb2 wrote: »

How do you figure that they are BS'ing her? Gender equalisation has messed all that up. Because they don't want to have to add young males, they won't add young females.

Close to renewal or not, isn't going to swing anything. Its either within their acceptance criteria or not. No one is obliged to provide cover for an additional driver.

Read what I actually wrote: you can't have a 'named driver' and yet have a new driver have 'their own policy' on the same car. Indeed you can't have two policies on one car. That's a fundamental contradiction. A 'named driver' is an addition to an existing policy, 'their own policy' is exactly that. It has nothing to do with acceptance criteria - if the cust service rep actually said it like OP says, then that rep has no idea what they're talking about, and anything else they'd say I'd file in the bin as well.

Gender equalisation in the context of the regulation is from a COST perspective - the ruling had nothing to do with whether to actually exclude females or not - it was about the COST of them.

peteb2

I did read the original post. And some insurance companies will not consider adding a driver to the policy if they do not have their own policy.

Having your own policy does not mean that you are covered to drive everyone's car. Having your own policy would only give you third party cover in someone else's car if you even had that extension. Some insurers won't give driving other cars if you are under 25 or have a provisional. And even then if it was a 10k car belonging to parents I'm sure they wouldn't be happy for it be written off with no cover.

Gender equalisation is not just a cost matter. It also impacts risk acceptance as part of the bigger picture of pricing.

So get your facts straight before you come charging in on your high horse.

sean1141

peteb2 wrote: »

I did read the original post. And some insurance companies will not consider adding a driver to the policy if they do not have their own policy.

Having your own policy does not mean that you are covered to drive everyone's car. Having your own policy would only give you third party cover in someone else's car if you even had that extension. Some insurers won't give driving other cars if you are under 25 or have a provisional. And even then if it was a 10k car belonging to parents I'm sure they wouldn't be happy for it be written off with no cover.

Gender equalisation is not just a cost matter. It also impacts risk acceptance as part of the bigger picture of pricing.

So get your facts straight before you come charging in on your high horse.

Galwaytt is talking about the op's mothers policy and the op becoming a named driver on it. They should not need a policy in their own name to be a named driver. I think you are mixing it up with a driving other cars on your own policy which is a different thing all together

djimi

peteb2 wrote: »

Gender equalisation is not just a cost matter. It also impacts risk acceptance as part of the bigger picture of pricing.

The gender equalization thing was brought in to attempt to stop the discrepancy in premium costs between male and female drivers. I dont see how it relates in any way to risk and I dont see how it would influence who and insurer will take on?

peteb2

sean1141 wrote: »

Galwaytt is talking about the op's mothers policy and the op becoming a named driver on it. They should not need a policy in their own name to be a named driver. I think you are mixing it up with a driving other cars on your own policy which is a different thing all together

No. I completely understand the concept. I amnt mixing anything up. They shouldn't need their own insurance but some insurers and products require you to. As I said before - read the complete thread - if you were a male driver looking to be added to your wife's lady drive policy they would look for evidence of your own insurance cover before agreeing to add you. So it's quite common place depending on the circumstances.

And as I also said driving other cars does not allow you the fullness of cover allowed by the policy of the owner of the vehicle.

Re; gender equalisation, you will also find that a few insurers that might have insured young female drivers and not young males will not do either as they have to offer the same pricing to both. And they will choose not to insure females to avoid the males. Fact.

djimi

How many insurers every flatly refused to insure young male drivers? Its not something that I ever experienced when I was starting out. Its normally tied to the car that the young male is trying to insure; a 19 year old trying to insure an Integra aint going to happen, but a 19 year old trying to insure a Yaris should have no problem getting a quote from anyone (might not be a great quote, but it shouldnt be a flat refusal).

Henry Ford III

Insurers can chose not to quote. It's totally their perogative.

I suspect the claims from learner permit holders (particularly those "chancing it" by driving alone) may be a big discouragement.

getz

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

I want to be added to my mothers policy, I have a provisional but I am doing the test in a month and I've never been insured before. I rang them up and they asked my age (19) and it seemed like they would insure me but then I said I have a provisional and they said they aren't insuring learners anymore since December?

i had a bad time when i was insured by zurich,their computers went down so the UK police said my insurance was not valid,three time i was stopped and my car was taken off me,eventually the company was heavily find,and i changed to another insurer.

peteb2

djimi wrote: »

How many insurers every flatly refused to insure young male drivers? Its not something that I ever experienced when I was starting out. Its normally tied to the car that the young male is trying to insure; a 19 year old trying to insure an Integra aint going to happen, but a 19 year old trying to insure a Yaris should have no problem getting a quote from anyone (might not be a great quote, but it shouldnt be a flat refusal).

When did you start out? Most the market wouldnt quote for young male drivers previously. Regardless of the car. AXA, Asgard, and Aviva. That was about it.

djimi

peteb2 wrote: »

When did you start out? Most the market wouldnt quote for young male drivers previously. Regardless of the car. AXA, Asgard, and Aviva. That was about it.

About 12 years ago. Ive always shopped around and while I was driving "normal" cars (ie not Honda/Jap import) I never had an issue getting a quote. They werent always good quotes, but I dont recall ever being refused for anything other than the car.

TheDoc

djimi wrote: »

How many insurers every flatly refused to insure young male drivers? Its not something that I ever experienced when I was starting out. Its normally tied to the car that the young male is trying to insure; a 19 year old trying to insure an Integra aint going to happen, but a 19 year old trying to insure a Yaris should have no problem getting a quote from anyone (might not be a great quote, but it shouldnt be a flat refusal).

At 23 years of age I had some trouble finding insurance. This was around September 2011 and alot of companies gave me a no.

Eventually got onto Aviva and took up their offer with the lessons.

Got my own policy just there back in October, Chill Insurance grabbed me a good deal.

To the OP, I'd try Asguard, there are renowned for giving good quotes to new and young male drivers.

sean1141

peteb2 wrote: »

No. I completely understand the concept. I amnt mixing anything up. They shouldn't need their own insurance but some insurers and products require you to. As I said before - read the complete thread - if you were a male driver looking to be added to your wife's lady drive policy they would look for evidence of your own insurance cover before agreeing to add you. So it's quite common place depending on the circumstances.

And as I also said driving other cars does not allow you the fullness of cover allowed by the policy of the owner of the vehicle.

Re; gender equalisation, you will also find that a few insurers that might have insured young female drivers and not young males will not do either as they have to offer the same pricing to both. And they will choose not to insure females to avoid the males. Fact.

i did read the complete thread. You keep going on about a male getting insured as a named driver on a female only policy but the op is female trying to get insured on her mothers policy..
I can understand an insurance company not giving someone with a learner permit a policy in there own name but refusing to let them be a named driver on another policy is dumb.

peteb2

Giving an example!

How is it dumb? They don't have to if they don't want to. And that is the longs and shorts of it.

hoodwinked

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

I want to be added to my mothers policy, I have a provisional but I am doing the test in a month and I've never been insured before. I rang them up and they asked my age (19) and it seemed like they would insure me but then I said I have a provisional and they said they aren't insuring learners anymore since December?

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

Do you think If I pass my test next month, they will then insure me then? they also said something about named drivers needing their own policy

you do realise a: you shouldn't be driving at all without insurance and more importantly b: they won't let you sit the test without having valid insurance?

sean1141

peteb2 wrote: »

Giving an example!

How is it dumb? They don't have to if they don't want to. And that is the longs and shorts of it.

i know its up to the insurance company and just because they dont want to cover someone dose not make it all right.

Example. A young student wants to learn to drive. They pass the theory test and get a learner permit. They do lessons with a driving instructor but want more practice.
They decided to get insured on their parents car but they cant because they have no policy of there own.
So the choice they are left with is either get extra lessons with the driving instructor which may not be an option depending on how busy the instructor is or buy a car and a policy and then get there parent to sit beside them while they drive. Instead of just being a named driver on the parents car... Sounds dumb to me.

hoodwinked wrote: »

you do realise a: you shouldn't be driving at all without insurance and more importantly b: they won't let you sit the test without having valid insurance?

You dont need your own car or insurance policy to sit a driving test. You can use your instructors car. The op never said they drove with no insurance

galwaytt

peteb2 wrote: »

Giving an example!

How is it dumb? They don't have to if they don't want to. And that is the longs and shorts of it.

....and that's why there exists the Declined Cases Agreement - DCA for short.

More, anon, and here: http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7848&lang=ENG&loc=1867

peteb2

galwaytt wrote: »

....and that's why there exists the Declined Cases Agreement - DCA for short.

More, anon, and here: http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7848&lang=ENG&loc=1867[/QUOTE]

If you are going to quote me in a post make sure you get it right!

The Declined Cases Agreement doesnt apply to someone looking to be added to another persons policy! Which is what the OP was on about - getting named as a driver on her mothers policy.

hoodwinked

sean1141 wrote: »

You dont need your own car or insurance policy to sit a driving test. You can use your instructors car. The op never said they drove with no insurance

true you don't need your own car but the op is looking for insurance on the mothers car obviously in an attempt to drive it,

and then says

Do you think If I pass my test next month, they will then insure me then? they also said something about named drivers needing their own policy

i was pointing it out as my cousin when going to sit her first driving test wasn't allowed go out as she didn't have the right documentation on her to prove she was insured in the car. before then none of us thought it would be an issue, apparently now it is.

galwaytt

peteb2 wrote: »

galwaytt wrote: »

....and that's why there exists the Declined Cases Agreement - DCA for short.

More, anon, and here: http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7848&lang=ENG&loc=1867[/QUOTE]

If you are going to quote me in a post make sure you get it right!

The Declined Cases Agreement doesnt apply to someone looking to be added to another persons policy! Which is what the OP was on about - getting named as a driver on her mothers policy.

you're still not reading my post correctly I see...........NOWHERE on that DCA page does it show that the OP's position could not be covered. Show me where it is. Ergo, I would suggest, it is covered, or certainly worth a try.

peteb2

Get a grip! Don't waste your fingers giving someone who is asking advice incorrect advice.

State intervention only applies to someone seeking insurance in their own right. There is no obligation for an insurer to add a driver to an existing policy. The DCA to "motorists who experience difficulty". The OP is not a motorist as they do not own a car.

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Insurers can chose not to quote. It's totally their perogative.

I suspect the claims from learner permit holders (particularly those "chancing it" by driving alone) may be a big discouragement.

Its actually not. Once you have I think its two written letters of refusal the third company are legally obliged to quote you. At least was the case a few years ago when I was quoted something like 9000 euro to be insured on an aprillia rs125 bike at 17 :rolleyes: after being refused multiple times for a quote.

Stheno

Gloria Lively Hockey wrote: »

Its actually not. Once you have I think its two written letters of refusal the third company are legally obliged to quote you. At least was the case a few years ago when I was quoted something like 9000 euro to be insured on an aprillia rs125 bike at 17 :rolleyes: after being refused multiple times for a quote.

Think it's three and you can go to the ombudsman now

galwaytt

galwaytt wrote: »

Read what I actually wrote: you can't have a 'named driver' and yet have a new driver have 'their own policy' on the same car. Indeed you can't have two policies on one car. That's a fundamental contradiction. A 'named driver' is an addition to an existing policy, 'their own policy' is exactly that. It has nothing to do with acceptance criteria - if the cust service rep actually said it like OP says, then that rep has no idea what they're talking about, and anything else they'd say I'd file in the bin as well.

Gender equalisation in the context of the regulation is from a COST perspective - the ruling had nothing to do with whether to actually exclude females or not - it was about the COST of them.

I'm pretty sure what they said was If I had a policy of my own on a car they would add me to my mothers. Maybe it was all to do with me being a learner though I Know that they used to take on named drivers easily enough before. Her renewal isn't untill june unfortunately.

hoodwinked

hoodwinked wrote: »

you do realise a: you shouldn't be driving at all without insurance and more importantly b: they won't let you sit the test without having valid insurance?

I've done a lot of lessons so I have been insured I suppose you could say, And I think I should pass but I hoped to do it in my mothers car as I wanted to practice in it for the next month untill the test but I'l just do a few more lessons now in my instructors car and hope for the best.

sean1141

sean1141 wrote: »

i know its up to the insurance company and just because they dont want to cover someone dose not make it all right.

Example. A young student wants to learn to drive. They pass the theory test and get a learner permit. They do lessons with a driving instructor but want more practice.
They decided to get insured on their parents car but they cant because they have no policy of there own.
So the choice they are left with is either get extra lessons with the driving instructor which may not be an option depending on how busy the instructor is or buy a car and a policy and then get there parent to sit beside them while they drive. Instead of just being a named driver on the parents car... Sounds dumb to me.


You dont need your own car or insurance policy to sit a driving test. You can use your instructors car. The op never said they drove with no insurance

Thanks this is exactly my case

hoodwinked

hoodwinked wrote: »

true you don't need your own car but the op is looking for insurance on the mothers car obviously in an attempt to drive it,

and then says



i was pointing it out as my cousin when going to sit her first driving test wasn't allowed go out as she didn't have the right documentation on her to prove she was insured in the car. before then none of us thought it would be an issue, apparently now it is.

Yes but I plan to use the instructors car now.

Stheno

Maeve Bitter Smokestack wrote: »

Yes but I plan to use the instructors car now.

Fair play to you for sticking to the rules, I wish you the best in your test.

oldyouth

Gloria Lively Hockey wrote: »

Its actually not. Once you have I think its two written letters of refusal the third company are legally obliged to quote you. At least was the case a few years ago when I was quoted something like 9000 euro to be insured on an aprillia rs125 bike at 17 :rolleyes: after being refused multiple times for a quote.

Insurers can only be compelled to provide a quotation to a person seeking insurance in their own name, for their own vehicle. An insurer only has obligations to their policyholder. It is THAT person they have the contract with. They are NOT obliged to add outside parties to the policy (named drivers).

The solution to the OP's problem is for the mother to switch her policy to an insurer who will happily take on the young driver

peteb2

I think common sense has gone out the window with all the bar stool brokers who just don't read the whole thread these days. Obviously not you, oldyouth.