2 distinct policies on same vehicle

cherrytaz

Hey

Just wondering if it is possible to have two individual insurance policies on the same vehicle? First person being the owner of the vehicle and second person not. So that NCB could be built up by both people as main drivers and not named drivers.

grogi

cherrytaz wrote: »

Hey

Just wondering if it is possible to have two individual insurance policies on the same vehicle? First person being the owner of the vehicle and second person not. So that NCB could be built up by both people as main drivers and not named drivers.

Technically yes, no issue there. You will find it difficult to find insurer that will sell a policy not to a vehicle owner though.

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

Technically yes, no issue there. You will find it difficult to find insurer that will sell a policy not to a vehicle owner though.

Technically, No. We've had this debate many times. You have no insurable interest to take out a policy on someone else's property. Hence the reason you won't get an insurer to provide a policy (spousal situation excluded)

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Technically, No. We've had this debate many times. You have no insurable interest to take out a policy on someone else's property. Hence the reason you won't get an insurer to provide a policy (spousal situation excluded)

We discussed it many times. And every time I point out that you don't insure the freaking car, but the driver to drive particular car. How otherwise the 'driving of other cars' extension works?!

There are other things to insuring vehicles of course. Owner would want to be insured for his negligence (lack of proper servicing etc). This also has nothing to do with the question - as the driver might be responsible only for its negligence, not someone else. It is in the owners best interest not to allow anybody to drive the car unless he/she is insured too.

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

Yes - and every time I point out that you don't insure the freaking car, but the driver.

Well give me a list of insurers that agree with your theory

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Well give me a list of insurers that agree with your theory

Insurers refuse to give quotes for magnitude of reasons. They often decide not to quote because they consider such policy too risky, not because there is lack of insurable interest.

What's more - virtually any insurer in Ireland will insure you do drive not your car. Not a permanent basis though, but as a temporary substitution. Clearly there is nothing fundamental that prevents such policy for two weeks... It is just an arbitrary decision not to quote for a year in such circumstances.

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

Insurers refuse to give quotes for magnitude of reasons. They often decide not to quote because they consider such policy too risky, not because there is lack of insurable interest.

So nobody then???

You've no idea how wrong that sentence looks to anybody who knows anything about any class of insurance, let alone motor

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

So nobody then???

You've no idea how wrong that sentence looks to anybody who knows anything about any class of insurance, let alone motor

Again:

Virtually all of them would allow that on temporary basis, exp. as a substitution vehicle. Clearly there is nothing fundamental that prevents such policy for two weeks...

It is just an arbitrary decision not to quote for a year in exactly same circumstances. Same as not insuring people to drive older vehicles.

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

Again:

Virtually all of them would allow that on temporary basis, exp. as a substitution vehicle. Clearly there is nothing fundamental that prevents such policy for two weeks... It is just an arbitrary decision not to quote for a year in exactly same circumstances.

I look forward to reading your publication on how you single-handedly changed one of the founding principles of insurance

grogi

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I look forward to reading your publication on how you single-handedly changed one of the founding principles of insurance

There is nothing to change. They are the same for centuries...

The issue is some experts seem not to understand what a third-party-liability policy is.

seamus

grogi wrote: »

It is in the owners best interest not to allow anybody to drive the car unless he/she is insured too.

It sure is, especially when it's an offence that can land you with a driving ban and jail time

As you say, the owner does not have to be insured in order for someone else to drive the vehicle. But the kicker is that someone else is only insured while they are in control of the vehicle.

Once they park the vehicle it is no longer insured, and aside from the offence of being uninsured in a public place, if the vehicle was to go on fire or otherwise cause damage to a 3rd party, the owner would be liable.

In the OP's hypothetical, it may be possible for two spouses to have their individual insurance policies on the same vehicle. The vehicle licensing certificate may have a registration in a single name, but that doesn't determine legal ownership, so there's little to stop both spouses from claiming ownership over the same vehicle for the purposes of getting insurance.

Whether it even has to be spouses is questionable. There is no reason why two people can't have joint ownership over any asset.

One drawback I could see from this though is that if the vehicle were to be stolen or otherwise damaged, the insurers would divide the costs between them and both spouses would lose their no-claims.

grogi

seamus wrote: »

It sure is, especially when it's an offence that can land you with a driving ban and jail time

As you say, the owner does not have to be insured in order for someone else to drive the vehicle. But the kicker is that someone else is only insured while they are in control of the vehicle.

Once they park the vehicle it is no longer insured, and aside from the offence of being uninsured in a public place, if the vehicle was to go on fire or otherwise cause damage to a 3rd party, the owner would be liable.

Absolutely. It is not the driver's liability and they don't need to have policy to cover those risks. It is pure stupidity on the owners side not to have the insurance covering losses caused by the vehicle if it is parked in public space. But it wasn't the original question.

In the OP's hypothetical, it may be possible for two spouses to have their individual insurance policies on the same vehicle. The vehicle licensing certificate may have a registration in a single name, but that doesn't determine legal ownership, so there's little to stop both spouses from claiming ownership over the same vehicle for the purposes of getting insurance.

One drawback I could see from this though is that if the vehicle were to be stolen or otherwise damaged, the insurers would divide the costs between them and both spouses would lose their no-claims.

All true - but here you're moved from discussing TPL policy to the Casco policy. One cannot insure the car while not being the owner. But still could obtain insurance to drive said vehicle.

And that's probably where the confusion comes, as in Ireland the two policies are very frequently sold together in a packaged product. The public confuses what is what.

cherrytaz

So in your summary, it is a no go?

grogi

cherrytaz wrote: »

So in your summary, it is a no go?

Legally possible, practically impossible.

tcawley29

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Well give me a list of insurers that agree with your theory

I'm pretty sure it was myself and yourself who went through this the last time and I was right too. Liberty Insurance will insure a car you don't own.

As regards the OPs situation I don't think that will work however.

If the vehicle is stolen or catches fire you have the situation of which insurance company is liable for the payout.
Basically any situation which policy cover may overlap between the policies and I think they settle it 50/50 then which means both NCB is gone.

OP best way to do this is swap the main policy holder every year.

If the car belongs to a family member this should be okay with Liberty in my experience.