refused refund on insurance

[poppynurse]

I had to add my OH to the vehicle insurance policy as his ban has just ended, policy not due for renewal till 16th May. The company that covered me wouldnot accept him so I had to cancel and go to another company (through the same broker). However they are refusing a refund on the remaining term. Are they entitled to do this?

[Conniff]

Unfortunately that would be yes. It is an annual policy and not a monthly one, you could have found a policy just for your OH and let yours run to completion.

[poppynurse]

That seems harsh, what happens if you sell a car - do you lose the remaining terms premiums? and the broker didn't mention that I could get my hubbie a standalone policy.

[Conniff]

It is harsh and a lot of resonable insurers would credit you back premiums, albeit on a higher short term risk costing.

After a ban, they would normally refuse to add him to your policy as he attracts a higher than normal premium and to put him on your insurance would be to give him a discount which they wont allow, especially if it was for something like drinking and driving.

You will find someone willing to insure him, but expect it to be loaded.

[ab123uk]

The underwriter I work for asesses convictions/previous claims on a points type basis, dependant on the age of a conviction/accident, the points differ, and the total points create the additional load, if this is driving whilst unfit through alcohol/driving witghout insurance, and the ban has ended in the last 12 months, it would be an unacceptable risk, so we wouldnt cover that person.

[patdavies]

That seems harsh, what happens if you sell a car - do you lose the remaining terms premiums? and the broker didn't mention that I could get my hubbie a standalone policy.

 

Most people transfer the policy to the new car.

[revolting peasant]

Almost all insurers operate a "short period cancellation scale" but as the reason for cancellation was the need to add a driver who is unacceptable to the insurer I think the broker should be pushing the insurer for a pro rata cancellation (i.e they refund the balance of premium from the date of cancellation to the expiry of the policy).

 

Conniff - I'm unclear about your advice. Are you suggesting that poppynurse's OH takes out a seperate policy for the same vehicle whilst she maintains the existing policy? Last time I checked, dual indemnity on a motor vehicle was unlawful.

[Darkangelsdelite]

I was just thinking that too. You cant have two policies on the same car so i'm confused as to what conniff meant as well.

In regards to cancellation charges, most, if not all, insurers charge a fee for cancelling the policy within the 12 month contract however this varies from company to company. It will be laid out in your T&C's so i'd suggest you read them through and see what they say and if its not clear then ring the company back up and get them to explain it too you.

 

Hope this helps

 

DA

[patdavies]

I was just thinking that too. You cant have two policies on the same car

 

Yes you can, as it is the driver who is insured; not the vehicle.

[Trojan1401]

No it's not, it's the vehicle that's insured.

You cannot have two primary policies covering the same vehicle. If you tried then it would flag up on MID. OBU is the exception where you may be driving your own insured car under a company policy for business purposes.

[patdavies]

I don't give a monkey's about MID.

 

It is perfectly possible and legal for two individuals to hold separate comprehensive polices allowing then to drive the same car.

 

My car, of which I am the RK, is insured and my wife is named on my policy. My son - because I won't pay the inflated premium to add him or risk my NCB has taken out his own comprehensive policy in order to drive it.

 

Under English law, the legal minimum insurance is required to insure the driver to use the vehicle on the public highway. Any extension beyond that to provide cover for the vehicle is just that, an optional extension.

 

RTA 1988 S.143 (my bold)

 

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,

[revolting peasant]

Pat

 

I agree with your comments on S143 but unless your son actually owns the vehicle he has no insurable interest in the car and I'm sure that in the event of an accident, his own insurers would provide third party cover only.

 

In the unlikely event that they did meet an own damage claim, they would expect your own insurers to meet at least half of the claim so you would end up claiming on your own policy as well.

[patdavies]

Pat

 

I agree with your comments on S143 but unless your son actually owns the vehicle he has no insurable interest in the car and I'm sure that in the event of an accident, his own insurers would provide third party cover only.

 

In the unlikely event that they did meet an own damage claim, they would expect your own insurers to meet at least half of the claim so you would end up claiming on your own policy as well.

 

The same could be said for me then; no insurable interest - because I don't own it either! And I can assure you that it has more than TPO cover.

[Darkangelsdelite]

Yes you can, as it is the driver who is insured; not the vehicle.

 

Rubbish, the insurance policy is to cover the vehicle, not the driver. The driver takes out the policy as he is the one who stands to lose out should said vehicle be damaged/stolen etc. The idea of the policy is for the policy holder to be recompenced back to the same state they were before the loss happend. You cant have 2 insurance policies on the same car, when people accidently insure a car twice (forgetting to cancel an auto renewal and taking out a new policy elsewhere is very common) then this is known as dual insurance (look it up). It also means that in the event of a claim, both insurers are potentially liable to pay out.

In regards to your situation, Revolting peasant is quite correct, your son has no insurable interest in the car so i would summise that any claim he trys to make on this policy you say he has would be repudiated.

The reason that revolting peasant said they may pay out for TPO cover is presumably that he has the Driving Other Cars extention which would allow him to drive any other car on a third party basis.

Just to clarify, you DO have financial interest in you car as it is in your wifes name and anything owned by either of you is seen as joint interest as far as insurance goes. this is the only exception to the rule (apart from civil partners etc).

 

DA

[patdavies]

Rubbish, the insurance policy is to cover the vehicle, not the driver.

 

No. See the quote for the RTA. Insurance is required for the person to use the vehicle.

 

Just to clarify, you DO have financial interest in you car as it is in your wifes name and anything owned by either of you is seen as joint interest as far as insurance goes. this is the only exception to the rule (apart from civil partners etc).

 

DA

By your postings, I have no insurable interest in the vehicle of which I am the RK - I have not ever said (and in fact it is not) owned by my wife. It is, in fact, owned by somebody outside the immediate family.

 

If you cannot obtain insurance for a vehicle that you or your wife/civil partner do not own, how is it possible to get insurance for a car on HP - which belongs to the HP company? Or a personal lease plan where the driver has to get insurance without being wither owner or RK?

 

The very fact that DOC exists is testament to the fact that it is the driver who is insured. If the vehicle was the insured, why is the driver named? In Germany, for example, the vehicle is insured and are any driver.

 

Lastly, if it is not possible to have two policies on the same car, what happens when it is in the garage and covered by the garage's policy. I can assure you that if the garage bend it, they cannot (actually, didn't even try to) get my insurer to pay out - even partially - it is their insurer's total liability.

[revolting peasant]

A trawl through my aged CII files tells me that it is an industry myth that dual insurance is illegal and on this I stand corrected. There is no legislation that actually prevents it.

 

However, I did find several extracts from insurance policies regarding dual indemnity and they all say pretty much the same. The one below is from a NU policy document.

 

Other insurance

If at the time of any claim arising under

this policy there is any other insurance

policy covering the same loss, damage or

liability, we will only pay our share

of the claim. This condition does not apply

to personal accident benefits under Section

3, which will be paid as indicated under

that section. This provision will not place

any obligation upon us to accept any

liability under Section 2 which we would

otherwise be entitled to exclude under

Exception 1. to Section 2.

Both insurers would therefore pay equal amounts of any claim.

[patdavies]

A trawl through my aged CII files tells me that it is an industry myth that dual insurance is illegal and on this I stand corrected. There is no legislation that actually prevents it.

 

No probs

 

However, I did find several extracts from insurance policies regarding dual indemnity and they all say pretty much the same. The one below is from a NU policy document.

 

Other insurance

If at the time of any claim arising under

this policy there is any other insurance

policy covering the same loss, damage or

liability, we will only pay our share

of the claim. This condition does not apply

to personal accident benefits under Section

3, which will be paid as indicated under

that section. This provision will not place

any obligation upon us to accept any

liability under Section 2 which we would

otherwise be entitled to exclude under

Exception 1. to Section 2.

 

Both insurers would therefore pay equal amounts of any claim.

 

Surely, the loss, damage or liability attaches to the particular driver and is not a shared liability.

 

Certainly when my son did claim, my insurance were not at all involved (beyond being informed of the accident)

[revolting peasant]

In the event of a damage claim (this doesn't apply to TP PI claims), the subject of the insurance IS the vehicle not the driver so if multiple insurance is in force each insurer is jointly liable and able to claim a proportion of the total cost of the claim from the other.

[Trojan1401]

I agree with Dark Angel on this.

How did your son manage to get insurance on the car anyway..who did he declare was owner/registered keeper ? He has no insurable interest therefore should not be able to get cover.

Whilst dual insurance is technically not illegal it is certainly not market practice and in the event of a claim being made would certainly cause issues between insurers and potentially indemnity issues.

I suspect that any AD claim made by your son would be repudiated by his insurance company - I certainly would.

[revolting peasant]

If you cannot obtain insurance for a vehicle that you or your wife/civil partner do not own, how is it possible to get insurance for a car on HP - which belongs to the HP company? Or a personal lease plan where the driver has to get insurance without being wither owner or RK?

 

The very fact that DOC exists is testament to the fact that it is the driver who is insured. If the vehicle was the insured, why is the driver named? In Germany, for example, the vehicle is insured and are any driver.

 

Lastly, if it is not possible to have two policies on the same car, what happens when it is in the garage and covered by the garage's policy. I can assure you that if the garage bend it, they cannot (actually, didn't even try to) get my insurer to pay out - even partially - it is their insurer's total liability.

 

 

I think you are testing this to it's limits Pat and it has detracted from the OP's original query. You know that a motor trade policy supercedes the specific policy for the vehicle and motor traders pay through the nose for that privilege. Both mine and my wifes car are on personal lease contracts but it is our responsibility to insure them. That is part of the agreement. We hold the V5 for both cars as registered keepers, even though we don't actually own them. The important part is insurable interest and you don't have any apart from RTA requirement.