Policy null and void

David09

robbie7730 wrote: »

Are the insurance company saying the whole policy was null and void?

Yes.

robbie7730 wrote: »

But if the insurance company are claiming the entire policy was void, then they should refund alright. They will just do the usual, take peoples money, and only tell them when the insurance is claimed through an event that the insurance was covering, that their policy was void.

That seems to be the case in this instance.

?Cee?view

One thing needs to be clear.

Insurable interest is NOT the same as ownership.

One can have an insurable interest in something with legally owning it, or indeed owning it in any way.

In this case, it appears that the daughter is the legal owner as she is noted on the vehicle's papers as its owner. However, the father may have a beneficial interest in it. He may have provided money to finance it, run it, repair it etc.

If the father has such a beneficial interest in this car, he clearly would have an insurable interest. However, even if he has no beneficial ownership, he may still have an insurable interest. He will suffer financially because of the loss of the car. He'll have to hire a car for his own use etc. This benefit (and resultant loss) which he derives from the car would also constitute an insurable interest.

The catch is...he needs to be very aware of what declarations were made when insuring the car. Did he claim to be the registered owner at the time?

If he did, the insurer may then use his false declaration to avoid indemnifying him. However, then the Insurable interest argument would be moot. They're avoiding cover because of a false declaration and most likely some call centre insurance person is using Insurable Interest as an excuse because they know no better.

Time to get legal advice. Also, check out the insurance company's complaints procedure which will have to be gone through before the matter can be brought to the Ombudsdman.

David09

David09 wrote: »

..........The polo was a cheap backup car for him and a motor that his daughter could use to learn to drive in...........

Rightly or wrongly that to me screams he wasn't the main driver on it. If I was the insurer I'd be thinking well 18 months on is the daughter using the car for cummuting to work or college whatever now she has learned how to drive, the chap has another car and the Polo was a back up car for him to use when other family folk were using the other car etc etc.

David09

robbie7730 wrote: »

There are probably many others in a similar situation.

Actually, come to think of it.... I passed my old car on to my mother as her car was falling apart. The car I gave her is still in my name yet as far as I'm concerned it's now hers to do what she likes with.
She insured it in her own name but does that mean she's driving around uninsured????

Bruthal

David09 wrote: »

That's a good point about the two year's refund. It would more than cover the cost of losing the car.

The insurance company would of likely paid out in a third party claim though. So only the fire and theft part could really be expected as a refund. But that would probably not amount to much anyway.

Bruthal

David09 wrote: »

Actually, come to think of it.... I passed my old car on to my mother as her car was falling apart. The car I gave her is still in my name yet as far as I'm concerned it's now hers to do what she likes with.
She insured it in her own name but does that mean she's driving around uninsured????

Well i would say there are many in the same situation. Its easy for perfect posters to mention about being asked if your the registered owner in any insurance query, because now this is part of the topic, but in real life, these things are easily missed.

MugMugs

churchview wrote: »

If he did, the insurer may then use his false declaration to avoid indemnifying him. However, then the Insurable interest argument would be moot. They're avoiding cover because of a false declaration and most likely some call centre insurance person is using Insurable Interest as an excuse because they know no better.

It seems very apparent from the Original Post that this policy has been cancelled back to inception due to the non disclosure of a material fact therefore releiving the Insurer from indemnifying the loss incurred.

Henry Ford III

churchview wrote: »

One thing needs to be clear.

Insurable interest is NOT the same as ownership.

One can have an insurable interest in something with legally owning it, or indeed owning it in any way.

In this case, it appears that the daughter is the legal owner as she is noted on the vehicle's papers as its owner. However, the father may have a beneficial interest in it. He may have provided money to finance it, run it, repair it etc.

If the father has such a beneficial interest in this car, he clearly would have an insurable interest. However, even if he has no beneficial ownership, he may still have an insurable interest. He will suffer financially because of the loss of the car. He'll have to hire a car for his own use etc. This benefit (and resultant loss) which he derives from the car would also constitute an insurable interest.

The catch is...he needs to be very aware of what declarations were made when insuring the car. Did he claim to be the registered owner at the time?

If he did, the insurer may then use his false declaration to avoid indemnifying him. However, then the Insurable interest argument would be moot. They're avoiding cover because of a false declaration and most likely some call centre insurance person is using Insurable Interest as an excuse because they know no better.

Time to get legal advice. Also, check out the insurance company's complaints procedure which will have to be gone through before the matter can be brought to the Ombudsdman.

If Daddy bought a car for his daughter and gave it to her to use, and registered it in her name, it's clear to me at least that it's no longer his car, and he no longer has an insurable interest in it.

She should have bought her own insurance (and funnily enough it wouldn't have mattered had he paid for it).

Seems clearcut enough. The named driver ruse was just to save on the motor premium. It's widespread, and dodgy.

Mr. Presentable

David09 wrote: »

Absolutely not, despite what it may look like. The car was shared between him and the daughter 50/50, if anything he used it more than the daughter as "his own" car was shared between his wife and two sons.

He is the type of person who is honest and does everything "by the book". He was very shocked when he received the letters through the post and asked me for my advice.

In whose name is "his own" car insured? I didn't think you could get insurance readliy on more than one car for private use.

?Cee?view

MugMugs wrote: »

It seems very apparent from the Original Post that this policy has been cancelled back to inception due to the non disclosure of a material fact therefore releiving the Insurer from indemnifying the loss incurred.

Agreed, but this opens up the argument as to whether the non-disclosure was intentional or not.

Henry Ford III

churchview wrote: »

Agreed, but this opens up the argument as to whether the non-disclosure was intentional or not.

I can't recall exactly what the normal questions asked are but they might be similar to these....

1/. Are you the registered owner? (answered yes untruthfully)

2/. Are you the main driver? (again answered yes untruthfully)

If these are correct it's pretty blatant imho.

?Cee?view

Henry Ford III wrote: »

She should have bought her own insurance (and funnily enough it wouldn't have mattered had he paid for it).

Seems clearcut enough. The named driver ruse was just to save on the motor premium. It's widespread, and dodgy.

I agree that there are many cases as you describe and of course they're well dodgy.

However, in this case there's reference to 50/50 use, and another reference to his having used it more.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

...it's no longer his car, and he no longer has an insurable interest in it.

The point is you don't have to "own" something to have an insurable interest in it. The concept of insurable interest is being mixed up in this discussion with the contractual position under the specific insurance policy at issue.

He likely does have an insurable interest, but it may be (and most likely is) one that the insurer chooses not to insure.

Anyway, I don't want to take it OT. OP, if this is a genuine case, get your friend to get further advice. Go to a lawyer and pursue it with the ombudsman. Insurance works on averages, and your friend will just get lumped in with the chancers unless he speaks up, if he has a genuine case.

Mr. Presentable

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

In whose name is "his own" car insured? I didn't think you could get insurance readliy on more than one car for private use.

You can once you are willing to pay for it No reason at all why you can't have several cars insured in your own name. As long as you declare the situation factually.

?Cee?view

RoverJames wrote: »

You can once you are willing to pay for it No reason at all why you can't have several cars insured in your own name. As long as you declare the situation factually.

...and bend over while they nicely inform you that your NCB only applies to one car

Henry Ford III

churchview wrote: »

I agree that there are many cases as you describe and of course they're well dodgy.

However, in this case there's reference to 50/50 use, and another reference to his having used it more.


The point is you don't have to "own" something to have an insurable interest in it. The concept of insurable interest is being mixed up in this discussion with the contractual position under the specific insurance policy at issue.

He likely does have an insurable interest, but it may be (and most likely is) one that the insurer chooses not to insure.

Anyway, I don't want to take it OT. OP, if this is a genuine case, get your friend to get further advice. Go to a lawyer and pursue it with the ombudsman. Insurance works on averages, and your friend will just get lumped in with the chancers unless he speaks up, if he has a genuine case.

As you rightly say it's debatable.

p.s. You have presented your points very well.

?Cee?view

Henry Ford III wrote: »

p.s. You have presented your points very well.

That sounds like what my wife says shortly before I get a (usually well deserved) crack across the ear

MugMugs

churchview wrote: »

Agreed, but this opens up the argument as to whether the non-disclosure was intentional or not.

The Central Bank of Ireland state under the Consumer Protection Code that an Insurer must be satisfied that the Insured has not made a "innocent mistake"

I'm sorry but you don't just forget that the vehicle is Daughters name and Insurance Policy is in yours. You're given a very important document for both processes.

If I were the OP's friend, I would complain to the Insurer, request a final response and refer this onto The Ombudsman however I would be very confident of a win if I was the Company.

What it really comes down to here is what was said in response to the questions asked at inception. If there was a breach of Utmost Good Faith by the client then they're in trouble.

OP. Be aware that a return of premiums paid is great however it must be declared to the next insurer that they have had a policy cancelled and this will result in an increased premium otherwise they will find themselves in the same boat should another claim arise.

ShadowHearth

draffodx wrote: »

You cant insure anything that you don't have a vested interest in, since he didn't own the car (it not being in his name) he cant have insurance on it.

So if the car was in his daughters name and he was insured and the owner and main driver of the car then the insurance is rightfully void I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter what he was asked, its up to him to inform the insurer's.

Wtf? Insurance company newer told anything like this to me or misses. Mx5 is In my name, but misses took insurance on it On her own name. so if something will happen she is not covered?!?!

When misses crashed merc it was same. Car in my name, policy in her name. No hassle to claim.

MugMugs

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Wtf? Insurance company newer told anything like this to me or misses. Mx5 is In my name, but misses took insurance on it On her own name. so if something will happen she is not covered?!?!

When misses crashed merc it was same. Car in my name, policy in her name. No hassle to claim.

"Partner" "Spouse" "Misses" are usually accepted.

In this case the other party is the Daughter which would not be acceptable.

Check your policy wording to be sure but you should be ok.

mickdw

The issue here is that the insurers think the car was for the daughter but was insured on the cheap in parents name. I dont think they would make any issue of the name of the registered keeper if the arrangement didnt lead to a reduced premium.

Shane732

Just to be clear in my head the issue here is that, in theory, the father doesn't have an insurable interest as the car is registered to his daughter?

From reading the conversation here I'm a little confused!

I see the "main driver" question popping up again once or twice. Can somebody please define what the main driver is for insurance purposes - i.e. the person who spends the most time in the car, the person who drives the furthest distance in the car, the person who has the right to use the car whenever he/she wants?

I would have the thought the insurable interest point was the key thing here more so than the main driver?

MugMugs

Shane732 wrote: »

Just to be clear in my head the issue here is that, in theory, the father doesn't have an insurable interest as the car is registered to his daughter?

From reading the conversation here I'm a little confused!

I see the "main driver" question popping up again once or twice. Can somebody please define what the main driver is for insurance purposes - i.e. the person who spends the most time in the car, the person who drives the furthest distance in the car, the person who has the right to use the car whenever he/she wants?

I would have the thought the insurable interest point was the key thing here more so than the main driver?

Appears the policy was cancelled due to Non Disclosure of a Material fact. Non relative to "Insurable Interest"

The "main driver" is the registered owner and user of the vehicle. A Named Driver is merely a party added to the policy for variable amounts of use for the vehicle. It's not clearly defined however it is assumed that the Named Driver would not be using the vehicle as their sole means of transport whereas the Main Driver who would assuming everything is up to date own and run the vehicle use the same as their primary means of transport.

If that makes sense.

ie: Daddy mainly drives Daddies car and little Jessica sometimes uses it to go to the cinema with Todd her big hunky boyfriend.... mmmmmm Todd