Shared car - insurance implications

CountingCrows

My wife & I have a single family car which we share. Currently, it's insured under her name with me as a named driver. Renewal is up soon, should we look to swap the arrangement with me being the policyholder this time? Likely we'll go back to a two-car family in the future so want to try and protect both of our no claims bonus.

bazz26

Insurance companies normally take account of spousal situations when it comes to no claims bonus but best ring them to confirm.

ION08

CountingCrows wrote: »

My wife & I have a single family car which we share. Currently, it's insured under her name with me as a named driver. Renewal is up soon, should we look to swap the arrangement with me being the policyholder this time? Likely we'll go back to a two-car family in the future so want to try and protect both of our no claims bonus.

My wife and I are insured on the same car. It is my policy with her as "Named Driver"

As far as I'm concerned, we are both fully insured on our car.

Her name appears on the insurance cert with no written or implied exclusions or conditions.

She has lost her own No Claims as a result of this but if she ever needs her own policy again, most insurers will recognise 2 years of Named Driving Experience as being equal to 1 year NCB.

That being said, we recently tried to go back to being a "2 car family" and she was refused cover on 1.2 Litre Clio on the basis of the car being "too old"..

They refused cover on the '02 Clio but were willing to cover her on an identical '04 model

Typical Irish insurance industry bulls**t and obsession with the year on a Reg plate :rolleyes:

And even obtaining hypothetical quotes on an '04 Clio proved ridiculous so we just gave up.

I guess she will just have to continue driving a powerful 3 Litre car instead of a 1.2 Litre 55bhp petrol hatchback :rolleyes:

Del2005

CountingCrows wrote: »

My wife & I have a single family car which we share. Currently, it's insured under her name with me as a named driver. Renewal is up soon, should we look to swap the arrangement with me being the policyholder this time? Likely we'll go back to a two-car family in the future so want to try and protect both of our no claims bonus.

Since you are married you both have an insurable interest so can, and for single car families should , swap the main driver annually

Cee-Jay-Cee

Yes swap about each year so you both can build up NCB. Its a ridiculous situation and one of the multitude of issues that needs to be addressed by a proper regulator (which we currently don't have)

ION08

Op, are there any costs associated with swapping/alternating “main driver” with your wife?

As I mentioned, most insurance companies consider 2yrs Named Experience = 1yr NCB

So if there are costs involved with swapping main drivers, youd want to do some maths to see how it balances out before spending money to save money.

CiniO

I see completely no problem with OP's plan to alternate insurance policies every year.

If Mrs OP holds a policy now, then surely Mr OP, can purchase a policy next year and built 1 extra year of NCB. Then Mrs OP will buy policy for next year, and so on.

That way, they both could build 5 years NCB each within 10 years starting from zero.

grogi

Del2005 wrote: »

Since you are married you both have an insurable interest so can, and for single car families should , swap the main driver annually

Stop repeating the insurable interest bs.

Any person driving has insurable interest for the TPL policy. Cost of damage to the vehicle is really peanuts in the total cost of damage that can be done.

Insurers simply refuse to insure non-owners as main policy holders because that removes majority of dodgy policies.

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

Stop repeating the insurable interest bs.

Any person driving has insurable interest for the TPL policy. Cost of damage to the vehicle is really peanuts in the total cost of damage that can be done.

Insurers simply refuse to insure non-owners as main policy holders because that removes majority of dodgy policies.

That's nonsense. The owner of the vehicle has ultimate insurable interest in the 3rd party liability where the condition of vehicle is the cause of the loss

Cakerbaker

My husband and I have swapped insurance on our car since we went down to 1 car a few years ago . Quotes have always remained roughly the same regardless of who was being quoted as the main driver.

Seems quite common from speaking to our broker. There’s no major hassle, it’s treated as a new policy each year rather than a renewal and the person becoming the insured driver has to fill out a one page declaration stating why the we didn’t have our own policy the year previously. Stating we only have one car is our standard answer to that. We’re with a broker who has all our documents from the last 10 years so we don’t have to provide any certs etc. I’m not sure if it’d be a bit more hassle of having to provide documentation to a new company each year.

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

That's nonsense. The owner of the vehicle has ultimate insurable interest in the 3rd party liability where the condition of vehicle is the cause of the loss

But doesn't a driver have insurable interest?

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

But doesn't a driver have insurable interest?

No. Insurable interest relates to the financial loss one might incur as a result of loss of the subject matter of the policy, in this instance the car. Insurable interest isn't a liability issue in the purest sense

A driver has a need to seek protection to indemnify himself for his negligent acts, but does not suffer financially by the loss of the subject matter of the policy, again the car he is driving

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

No. Insurable interest relates to the financial loss one might incur as a result of loss of the subject matter of the policy, in this instance the car. Insurable interest isn't a liability issue in the purest sense

A driver has a need to seek protection to indemnify himself for his negligent acts, but does not suffer financially by the loss of the subject matter of the policy, again the car he is driving

So if driver seeks protection, he has insurable interest. He doesn't have it on insuring the vehicle itself, but in insuring himself against any risk arising from driving said motor vehicle.

TPL policy, the one required by law, is not about insuring the car...

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote:

So if driver seeks protection, he has insurable interest. He doesn't have it on insuring the vehicle itself, but in insuring himself against any risk arising from driving said motor vehicle.

Insurable interest is about financial interest in the subject matter of the policy, (in this instance the car) nothing to do with your liability. You're using incorrect terminology

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Insurable interest is about financial interest in the subject matter of the policy, (in this instance the car) nothing to do with your liability. You're using incorrect terminology

TPL policy is not about insuring a car. A cat is not subject matter in this case. That's the whole point.

And while I agree that only the owner should be able to insure the car, there is nothing fundamental preventing from grtting insured to drive someone's else's car.

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

And while I agree that only the owner should be able to insure the car, there is nothing fundamental preventing from grtting insured to drive someone's else's car.

I agree, but that is not Insurable Interest

coylemj

What about the situation where an employer leases a car and takes out an insurance policy for his employee(s) to drive it? The employer doesn't own the car and so technically has no 'insurable interest'.

Eggs For Dinner

He suffers financially by it's loss or damage as he is contracted to be responsible for it while in his custody and control. The employee driving it does so acting as if he was the employer. He has insurable interest