Insurance question

johnsul1

Just wondering does anyone have any experience or an answer to this??

I was driving 'my' car the other day and I was rear ended. Turns out my car is written off. Anyway, here's where it gets a little complicated. I purchased the car 2 years ago but moved to Australia shortly after. My brother transferred it over in to his name. I returned a few months ago and have been using the car again.

I'm wondering do I need to transfer it back into my name before sending the log book to the insurance or will this complicate things? Would it be easier to just have it paid to him and get him to transfer the funds into my account?

HeidiHeidi

So it's not actually your car then, surely?

Are you named on your brother's policy, or do you have another insurance policy which you were using to cover your driving of your brother's car?

johnsul1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

So it's not actually your car then, surely?

Are you named on your brother's policy, or do you have another insurance policy which you were using to cover your driving of your brother's car?

Well it is my car, I was the one that paid just under €15,000 for it but technically it isn't as the log book is in his name. I was driving on my own policy and had intended on transferring it back into my name but had actually forgotten to do so.

It isn't my insurance that is paying out against the damages.

honreal

johnsul1 wrote: »

Well it is my car, I was the one that paid just under €15,000 for it but technically it isn't as the log book is in his name. I was driving on my own policy and had intended on transferring it back into my name but had actually forgotten to do so.

It isn't my insurance that is paying out against the damages.

hmmm... this should be interesting... how can you have a policy in your own name on a car you don't technically own

HeidiHeidi

Well if you had a current policy for that car, then I can't see a problem.

But if the car is in your brother's name, could you have taken a policy out on it? If not, what car is named on your policy - ie what car is the policy issued for? I thought you'd have to own the car to take a policy out on it, tbh - open to correction on that, though.

If your brother's name is on the logbook, then it's his car, no matter how much you paid for it, or who's driving it.

johnsul1

honreal wrote: »

hmmm... this should be interesting... how can you have a policy in your own name on a car you don't technically own

I put it down on the insurance that I owned the car and had full intention of changing it back over. It was something that I just forgot about then.

HeidiHeidi

I can't see that ending well.

johnsul1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

If your brother's name is on the logbook, then it's his car, no matter how much you paid for it, or who's driving it.

Yeah I understand that. I suppose that's my question. If I send the log book in as is will that arouse suspicion or cause much hassle as it's not in my name or would it just be easier to change the car ownership now and send the log book back in my name?

johnsul1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I can't see that ending well.

Why? I wasn't at fault for the accident.

Stheno

Whos insurance have you to send the logbook to?

HeidiHeidi

johnsul1 wrote: »

Yeah I understand that. I suppose that's my question. If I send the log book in as is will that arouse suspicion or cause much hassle as it's not in my name or would it just be easier to change the car ownership now and send the log book back in my name?

Who are you sending the log book in to?

Your biggest problem is that you lied on an insurance proposal form. If that comes out in the wash they won't look kindly on it.

johnsul1

Stheno wrote: »

Whos insurance have you to send the logbook to?

The person that rear ended me!

HeidiHeidi

johnsul1 wrote: »

Why? I wasn't at fault for the accident.

You technically weren't insured on the car you were driving either.

johnsul1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Who are you sending the log book in to?

Your biggest problem is that you lied on an insurance proposal form. If that comes out in the wash they won't look kindly on it.

Yeah I know, the reality was I intended on changing it back. It is my car and was never an issue with that. I just never sent the log book off to change the ownership.

eezipc

johnsul1 wrote: »

I put it down on the insurance that I owned the car and had full intention of changing it back over. It was something that I just forgot about then.

That is interesting. For example, if you bought the car from your brother and filled out the log book and sent it to Shannon. What happens if they never received it? What if the log book got lost in the post?

HeidiHeidi

johnsul1 wrote: »

Yeah I know, the reality was I intended on changing it back. It is my car and was never an issue with that. I just never sent the log book off to change the ownership.

I'll repeat - if your brother's name is on the log book, it isn't your car.

If it isn't your car, you shouldn't have said it was on the insurance proposal form.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I honestly don't mean to be high-horsey about this, but you'll do well to talk your way out of it if the insurance company cops on.

Indricotherium

Why are you sending anything to your insurance if you are not at fault for the accident?

ThisRegard

honreal wrote: »

hmmm... this should be interesting... how can you have a policy in your own name on a car you don't technically own

You can take a policy out on a car belonging to your spouse for example.

johnsul1

eezipc wrote: »

That is interesting. For example, if you bought the car from your brother and filled out the log book and sent it to Shannon. What happens if they never received it? What if the log book got lost in the post?

Yeah exactly. I know it doesn't excuse me forgetting about it but there isn't an issue with who actually owns the car.

There's no issue with liability. I've spoken to their insurance and have agreed a price for my written off car. My only issue is that if I give the log book as is will it cause hassle? Or am I better off sending it to Shannon and changing it over?

Aongus Von Heisenberg

You have no insurable interest in the car so your policy is void.

If they accept their insured is at fault the other driver's insurers should still have to reinstate the owner of the car, your brother, by settling with him.

Changes of ownership close to a date of accident will set fraud alarm bells ringing so just leave it to your brother to deal with the other driver's insurers if all you want is to recover for damage to the vehicle.

johnsul1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I'll repeat - if your brother's name is on the log book, it isn't your car.

If it isn't your car, you shouldn't have said it was on the insurance proposal form.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I honestly don't mean to be high-horsey about this, but you'll do well to talk your way out of it if the insurance company cops on.

Well it does;t really matter tbh. I wasn't liable for the accident. Damage was caused to the vehicle and their insurance has to cover it. So I just want to know which is the most hassle free way of dealing with it. It has nothing to do with their insurance whether I lied or not.

johnsul1

Aongus Von Heisenberg wrote: »

You have no insurable interest in the car so your policy is void.

If they accept their insured is at fault the other driver's insurers should still have to reinstate the owner of the car, your brother, by settling with him.

Changes of ownership close to a date of accident will set fraud alarm bells ringing so just leave it to your brother to deal with the other driver's insurers if all you want is to recover for damage to the vehicle.

Thank you, that's basically what I wanted to know. I've dealt with their insurance up until this point. I was the one driving and I paid for the car, it would be seen as mine apart from the log book. The price etc is agreed and they asked me to send in the log book. I was just wondering would it cause a lot of confusion if they find the log book in my brothers name instead of mine?

HeidiHeidi

johnsul1 wrote: »

Well it does;t really matter tbh. I wasn't liable for the accident. Damage was caused to the vehicle and their insurance has to cover it. So I just want to know which is the most hassle free way of dealing with it. It has nothing to do with their insurance whether I lied or not.

No, but it has to do with your insurance and whether you were covered while driving. That's where problems will lie if your insurance company joins the dots.

If you gave false information on the proposal form (it wasn't your car) then that would (I'm assuming) void the policy.

It's a different problem from who pays for the car, but it's potentially a problem for you nonetheless.

Aongus Von Heisenberg

johnsul1 wrote: »

Thank you, that's basically what I wanted to know. I've dealt with their insurance up until this point. I was the one driving and I paid for the car, it would be seen as mine apart from the log book. The price etc is agreed and they asked me to send in the log book. I was just wondering would it cause a lot of confusion if they find the log book in my brothers name instead of mine?

Yes they should only pay out to the registered owner.

I can't say for sure what would be the best way to resolve this but I'd probably clarify with them at this point that you were driving but that the car's your brothers.

Seve OB

I've been driving a long time. I do not recall ever having to state that I was the registered owner of the vehicle. Maybe it's in the fine print somewhere?

I have insured myself on cars owned by my dad, my mum, my wife. I have had temporary insurance on numerous cars and vans that I have borrowed for periods of days to weeks.

The important thing is to make sure you are insured to drive the car. The ownership of the car is not as important.

I mean, lets say you are a 2 car family. you buy a new one and give yours to your missus. are you really going to go and register your wife as a new owner on the car, thus devaluing it in the process? Same craic if you were to pass the car onto your kid. If I had of been in your situation, I would never have changed the ownership in the first place.

Bio Mech

Its going to be a bit messy. The insurance will have to settle with your brother, the cheque for the car damage will be to him. He will have to lodge it and transfer the money to you. Legally its his so let hope he is reasonable!

You will have to hope the other insurance company doesn't decide to be difficult. If there is no injury claim it might help them push it along without dragging their heels. But you will be lucky if it goes smoothly.

Silly thing to do.

Bio Mech

Seve OB wrote: »

I've been driving a long time. I do not recall ever having to state that I was the registered owner of the vehicle. Maybe it's in the fine print somewhere?

I have insured myself on cars owned by my dad, my mum, my wife. I have had temporary insurance on numerous cars and vans that I have borrowed for periods of days to weeks.

The important thing is to make sure you are insured to drive the car. The ownership of the car is not as important.

I mean, lets say you are a 2 car family. you buy a new one and give yours to your missus. are you really going to go and register your wife as a new owner on the car, thus devaluing it in the process? Same craic if you were to pass the car onto your kid. If I had of been in your situation, I would never have changed the ownership in the first place.

The ownership of the car is important. Google insurable interest. Its different between spouses then between brothers. Lots of policies have, in the conditions, that the insured car is in your name or in the name of your spouse.

Your temporary insurance would have been third party. If you crashed (single vehicle crash) the car you borrowed your insurance wouldn't have paid you for the car damage as you had no interest in the car.

johnsul1

So basically what I'm getting is the best thing to do is send the log book to the insurance company as is and let them pay my brother?

Bio Mech wrote: »

He will have to lodge it and transfer the money to you. Legally its his so let hope he is reasonable!

That's not going to be an issue at all. I paid €15,000 for a car and let him have it for over a year when he was still in college and couldn't afford one. He has since bought his own.

Seve OB

Bio Mech wrote: »

The ownership of the car is important. Google insurable interest. Its different between spouses then between brothers. Lots of policies have, in the conditions, that the insured car is in your name or in the name of your spouse.

Your temporary insurance would have been third party. If you crashed (single vehicle crash) the car you borrowed your insurance wouldn't have paid you for the car damage as you had no interest in the car.

I understand what Insurable interest is. But there is also a thing called common sense, and unfortunately Insurance companies don't have much of it! They do things to suit only themselves.

Will have to sus that out regarding transferring my insurance, I always was under the assumption I paid for fully comp, so transferring it meant the temporary cover was also fully comp.

I would argue not having any interest in the temporary car, as if I crashed it into a wall or whatever, whoever owned the car is going to want to be reimbursed. They will come after me for the value, so there is my insurable interest right there.

Graham

Bio Mech wrote: »

The ownership of the car is important. Google insurable interest.

If it's the insurers for the other party paying out where does the OP's insurable interest become relevant?

Aongus Von Heisenberg

johnsul1 wrote: »

So basically what I'm getting is the best thing to do is send the log book to the insurance company as is and let them pay my brother?



That's not going to be an issue at all. I paid €15,000 for a car and let him have it for over a year when he was still in college and couldn't afford one. He has since bought his own.

They're only going to settle for damage with the legal owner of the car.

Uncertainty regarding ownership or insurable interest may trigger a suspicion of fraud. This won't change the liability position but it may delay settlement if the Insurer needs to clarify the situation.

For your own good don't listen to the people saying that Insurable Interest is irrelevant. Lack of it complicates matters unnecessarily even when you're not at fault for an accident. If you were at fault you'd have serious problems.

cruizer101

Lot of people worrying about if you insured or not, I would see it as kind of irrelevant in this issue.

Send log book off, their insurance pays out, your brother gives you the money.

I don't see that your insurance company has to be involved at all.
Imagine the car was parked and OP was in passenger seat, car crashed into it full liability get your money, I'd see this as no different.

Even if you weren't insured that doesn't change the liability and requirement for payment.

To Elland Back

Seve OB wrote: »

I've been driving a long time. I do not recall ever having to state that I was the registered owner of the vehicle. Maybe it's in the fine print somewhere?

I have insured myself on cars owned by my dad, my mum, my wife. I have had temporary insurance on numerous cars and vans that I have borrowed for periods of days to weeks.

The important thing is to make sure you are insured to drive the car. The ownership of the car is not as important.

I mean, lets say you are a 2 car family. you buy a new one and give yours to your missus. are you really going to go and register your wife as a new owner on the car, thus devaluing it in the process? Same craic if you were to pass the car onto your kid. If I had of been in your situation, I would never have changed the ownership in the first place.

You seriously need to look up Insurable Interest. You cannot take out insurance on another person's property, other than your spouse.

You can of course avail of a facility whereby Insurers will allow you an assumed interest in another persons vehicle for a temporary period (by prior agreement). Other than that, you can't.

Graham

To Elland Back wrote: »

You seriously need to look up Insurable Interest. You cannot take out insurance on another person's property, other than your spouse.

Where are you finding that?

I understand an insurable interest may not exist on some random car you've spotted in the supermarket carpark but you appear to be saying an insurable interest can only exist if you own the item being insured.

Skatedude

the registered owner may not be the legal owner, It's still his car, same as in a group or family policy for example. cars must be registered to the insurance policy holder who may not be the legal owner.
That been said, you been insured is a different mater and would be covered under the terms of the policy, your brothers or yours if you still have any since you came back. you will have to contact the insurance company to clarify it.

To Elland Back

Graham wrote: »

If it's the insurers for the other party paying out where does the OP's insurable interest become relevant?

An insurer (any insurer) is obliged to determine that they are only indemnifying persons who have suffered the financial loss, which is the owner of the goods. The 3rd party's insurers will take ownership in to consideration

To Elland Back

Graham wrote: »

Where are you finding that?

I understand an insurable interest may not exist on some random car you've spotted in the supermarket carpark but you appear to be saying an insurable interest can only exist if you own the item being insured.

Correct, with the exception of property owned by a spouse or under contract such as when you legally agree to be responsible for property that you might hire

Bio Mech

Graham wrote: »

If it's the insurers for the other party paying out where does the OP's insurable interest become relevant?

Because they wont pay the OP as he has no insurable interest. The settlement for the car will be to the brother and in the brothers name.

Graham

To Elland Back wrote: »

Correct, with the exception of property owned by a spouse or under contract such as when you legally agree to be responsible for property that you might hire

I'm not convinced ownership is a condition of insurable interest.

You can have/use something and suffer financial loss from the loss of that something without actually owning it.

Bio Mech

If it was a single car crash in this case it would have been a real problem. In the actual case as it happened another party is liable it might be ok.

If the OP had crashed the car without another party being involved then his insurance wouldn't have covered the damage as the OPs policy is to a car that he has no insurable interest in because someone else owns it. The brother presumably has no policy at all. So luckily for the OP the other party is liable.

Graham

Bio Mech wrote: »

Because they wont pay the OP as he has no insurable interest. The settlement for the car will be to the brother and in the brothers name.

OP is not claiming on his insurance. The other party is claiming on theirs, it is their insurable interest that is relevant here.

Bio Mech

Graham wrote: »

I'm not convinced ownership is a condition of insurable interest.

You can have/use something and suffer financial loss from the loss of that something without actually owning it.

It is in most cases really. Some policies, like boat insurance allow you to have several owners but part ownership is still ownership. How can you suffer material/financial loss from the loss of an object that you don't own?

Bio Mech

Graham wrote: »

OP is not claiming on his insurance. The other party is claiming on theirs, it is their insurable interest that is relevant here.

I know that. My point is that its between the other party and the brother. OP will not get a penny for the car.

honreal

Bio Mech wrote: »

It is in most cases really. Some policies, like boat insurance allow you to have several owners but part ownership is still ownership. How can you suffer material/financial loss from the loss of an object that you don't own?

I can't believe people don't understand this. It's straight forward.

also some posters have said they have never been asked if they own the vehicle when taking out insurance. I rang around 3 insurance companies recently for a quote and all asked me (whilst stating the call was recorded) was the vehicle registered in my name and I am the owner of the vehicle in question.


Keep us posted with the outcome of this OP. Im sure it will all work out but the insurance wont pay you out a cent as you are not the legal owner. Your brother may have to get involved here.

Graham

Bio Mech wrote: »

How can you suffer material/financial loss from the loss of an object that you don't own?

Insurable interest exists when an insured person derives a financial or other kind of benefit from the continuous existence, without impairment or damage, of the insured object (or in the case of a person, their continued survival).

For example, somebody loans you a car so your call your insurers and ask them to temporarily transfer your insurance to the loan car. You derive a benefit from the continuous existence of the loan car therefore you have an insurable interest.

Liam McPoyle

Graham wrote: »

Insurable interest exists when an insured person derives a financial or other kind of benefit from the continuous existence, without impairment or damage, of the insured object (or in the case of a person, their continued survival).

For example, somebody loans you a car so your call your insurers and ask them to temporarily transfer your insurance to the loan car. You derive a benefit from the continuous existence of the loan car therefore you have an insurable interest.

In the above scenario You have an interest insofar as the vehicle is in your custody and control and must be covered under the rules of the RTA however thats as far as it goes.

If you transferred your insurance onto the loan car and wrote it off in an accident you were at fault foe, who would be paid by the insurance company?

The registered owner is who, not you.

ThisRegard

Seve OB wrote: »

The important thing is to make sure you are insured to drive the car. The ownership of the car is not as important.

I mean, lets say you are a 2 car family. you buy a new one and give yours to your missus. are you really going to go and register your wife as a new owner on the car, thus devaluing it in the process? Same craic if you were to pass the car onto your kid. If I had of been in your situation, I would never have changed the ownership in the first place.

Spousal ownership, as I already mentioned, is different because you have an insurable interest there. It's different for cars owned by other family members, friends, etc.

Bio Mech

Graham wrote: »

Insurable interest exists when an insured person derives a financial or other kind of benefit from the continuous existence, without impairment or damage, of the insured object (or in the case of a person, their continued survival).

For example, somebody loans you a car so your call your insurers and ask them to temporarily transfer your insurance to the loan car. You derive a benefit from the continuous existence of the loan car therefore you have an insurable interest.

You are not getting this I give up. Perhaps someone else can take it up from here.

Graham

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

In the above scenario You have an interest insofar as the vehicle is in your custody and control and must be covered under the rules of the RTA however thats as far as it goes.

If you transferred your insurance onto the loan car and wrote it off in an accident you were at fault foe, who would be paid by the insurance company?

The registered owner is who, not you.

So in the OPs case, he has an insurable interest in the car but that is largely irrelevant as he is not claiming from his own insurance.

The claim is against the insurers for the other party who we presume will pay out to the registered owner of the (OPs) car.

Had the OP been found to be at fault for the accident, his own insurers may not have paid out because he essentially mis-declared ownership of the vehicle.

Graham

Bio Mech wrote: »

You are not getting this I give up. Perhaps someone else can take it up from here.

Perhaps you can show me somewhere that states ownership is an absolute requirement for insurable interest. A piece of legislation, a policy document, anything???

The loan car scenario I specifically detailed above wouldn't happen according to your definition of insurable interest. It does though, all the time.

Bio Mech

Graham wrote: »

So in the OPs case, he has an insurable interest in the car but that is largely irrelevant as he is not claiming from his own insurance.

The claim is against the insurers for the other party who we presume will pay out to the registered owner of the (OPs) car.

Had the OP been found to be at fault for the accident, his own insurers may not have paid out because he essentially mis-declared ownership of the vehicle.

One last post despite what I have said above:

The OP has no insurable interest in this car as he does not own it. His own insurance policy is based on a material lie/omission essentially.

Use of the car does not count.

Give me patience bye bye.