Query for the insurance buffs!!

[heliosuk]

Mum has an accident in a supermarket car park as car suddenly lurched foward. Damaged 2 other cars and plod turns up as does ambulance as knocked another lady. No damage to lady apart from a bruise. All details etc exchanged. Her car is technically an economic write off but is very repairable.

 

Now, insurance co goes through motions and suggests settlement figure, all agreeable but the crux is that policy is held in dads name with mum named as main driver. Insurance co now want a copy of dads licence which expired last year and due to his condition it was decided not to renew. However on the renewal notification she just renewed it not realising dads licence had expired.

 

Now she thinks her policy was invalid and as such is not insured so will have to pay for damage to other cars and is fearful of prosecution.

 

Query therfore is "is she insured" and if not "what is likely to happen next"

 

Any opinions greatly received as she is on the verge of a breakdown with this and dad's issues.

 

Thanks.

[wheelergeezer]

You can be 99.9% certain that the policy will be cancelled retrospectively and premium refunded. In theory Mum will be charged with no insurance, 6 points £200 fine.

 

It is an absolute condition of the policyholder that they hold a VALID driving licence for the vehicle 'insured' and notify the insurer of any material change, ie points, change of address, banning etc.

 

If it is correct that Dad's license expired (presumably 70th birthday) and he did not renew for whatever reason, then his insurance will be null and void and cancelled. Your Mum WOULD have been covered if it was her policy and he was the named driver, although they would still try to wriggle out, but in this case I cannot see anyway the insurance can remain valid.

 

It is probable that mum will not get done for no insurance as the police will have recorded and checked this at the time and won't become aware unless they are told by Mum or someone else.

[T.C.]

Most policies state that the policy holder must hold or must have held a licence, so in itself your mother may still be covered, particularly if the policy would have expired before your father decided to give up driving.

 

Look at the policy as clauses like this are usually in the small print which very few people bother to look at, and then contact your insurers and talk the issue over with them.

[heliosuk]

Thanks for the replies Caggers. I'll read the small print when down there on Wednesday. It has occurred to me though that there must be thousands of cases such as this around.

 

Whilst I understand the changes need to be notified I can't see that dads licence expiring is a change to the material facts when the policy was taken out as mum was the only named and notified main driver. Yes it should have been in her name but what's the difference if dads licence was valid? He wasn't in the car and wasn't driving, mum was who was "technically insured" was.

 

I don't understand why it makes a difference.

 

Anyone kind enough to explain?

[crem]

I don't understand why it makes a difference.

 

Anyone kind enough to explain?

 

because it gives the insurance company another easy "get out" for not paying.

[wheelergeezer]

Thanks for the replies Caggers. I'll read the small print when down there on Wednesday. It has occurred to me though that there must be thousands of cases such as this around.

 

Whilst I understand the changes need to be notified I can't see that dads licence expiring is a change to the material facts when the policy was taken out as mum was the only named and notified main driver. Yes it should have been in her name but what's the difference if dads licence was valid? He wasn't in the car and wasn't driving, mum was who was "technically insured" was.

 

I don't understand why it makes a difference.

 

Anyone kind enough to explain?

 

Insurance companies do not want to pay out. Fact. They will where they have to, but they certainly won't where they don't have to.

 

In this case, Dad is the policy holder. Mum is a named driver. So far so good. AT inception Dad had a licence, but he failed to have a licence when he did not renew (reasons totally acceptable). It is a condition of all car policies with insurares that the policyholder holds a valid licence for the class of vehicle throughout teh policy's life. Any points or bans change the initial arrangement and the insurer needs to be given the oportunity to re-evaluate the risk and increase or decline insurance accordingly.

 

If you were an insurer you may happily insure someone. Then they get done for speeding. You may let that go as exepirnec. then they get done for speeding again. This time you realise this is a habit, so load the risk by £100 extra premium. Then they get done a third time for speeding. You decide this is so habitual, that the risk of tehm colliding with something is increased to the point there is likely to be a claim in the near future. You would rather insure people who will not be claimed against, and thus you decide to cancel the policy and refund their premium.

 

Now the same person gets all teh speeding offences but this time fails to tell you. They have an accident believeing they are insured. You investiaget and uncover the speeding offences. You would not have covered them if you knew, so you cancel the policy and refund their premium leaving them with a big bill for the collsion and not you.

 

Same applies to not holding a licence. Whilst Mum has done nothing wrong other than shunting a car slightly, she has nothing to declare as an extra named driver. However, the policy holder did and does. The material fact that he 'lost' his licence (through surrender in this case) means that he could not hold valid insurance and thus the policy would have been cancelled if the insurers had been told. They weren't so it will be done retorspectively just as in the example above. Dad will receive a refund of teh premium for the current polciy, mu will end up with the accident bill.

 

It is possible the insurers will let it go if it is a very low value claim (say £150) and Dad has been with them for years, but highly unlikley as they are not in the charity business but insuarnec business and it is a business bottom line. As a shareholder I would be outraged if they paid out. As a decent human being I would love them to pay out. Insurers are a business.

 

The circumstances you have described sound very genuine and unfortunate. However, the fact remains that the policyholder did not notify the insurer of a material change, one that would have resulted in the policy being cancelled as motor inrance is not offered to persons unless they hold a valid licence for the vehicle. That could be a full licence or provisional, but it must be valid. Dads wasn't at the tiem of the collision.

 

 

Just as a footnote, Dad being the policyholder is decalring he is the main driver. I get the impression and so will the insurers that Mum became the main driver. Another material fact.

HTH

[crem]

Just as a footnote, Dad being the policyholder is decalring he is the main driver. I get the impression and so will the insurers that Mum became the main driver. Another material fact.

HTH

 

It's not strictly true that the policyholder has to be the main driver. I hold a number of policies in my name for vehicles I own, but on some of them I am not the main user so the policy has a "main named driver" and I am noted as "an occasional driver" on the policy.

[heliosuk]

Mum has always been the main driver since the policy's inception. This is where I am miffed.

 

Let's be clear, they haven't rejected it yet, it's just a case of what they might or can do. It might just sail through as it should.

 

My argument is that the fact that dad is not the main driver, 1. The age of the drivers has to be declared so their systems should pick this up. 2. Given that it has always been declared that mum was the main driver on the renewal this should have been picked up if there was an issue with it happening 2 years in a row. Direct line managed to do this in same said circumstances with me taking over the use of my wifes car. 3. If they try to back it and refund the premiums then isn't this like a bookmaker refusing to pay out on a horse that wins because it happened to have 5 weetabix in the morning. Hardly a material fact is it?

 

I can understand wheelies point about speeding etc which is very valid but here is a case where the policy holder is essentially just a name on a husband and wife policy.

 

I'll know more tomorrow evening so will update on Thursday.

[papasmurf1cx]

I had an accident where I lost my leg. The 17 year old young lady was driving as a main driver on her father's insurance. Although the insurance company stated that the insurance was invalid as a comprehensive policy they did accept that they still had third party liability. Therefore the girls and father's losses were not paid presumably but I still was paid out as I was the third party.

 

I wouldn't give up hope as yet the insurance company took the premium to insure Mum.

[heliosuk]

It's the 3rd party liability that she seems to be most worried about most together with prosecution. If events take a turn for the worse so to speak then provided the 3rd parties are covered then the problem will be over. For the Grand she will lose on her car ( one which she was never too happy with anyway!!) I'd be happy with as the grief it's causing me at the moment would be worth it. Then we could get on with dealing with the major issue of how to handle dads illness.

 

Thanks for the comments anyway all. More opinions welcome.

[papasmurf1cx]

As to the prosecution I doubt if that will happen unless one of the other party's to the accident find out there is no insurance. If there is third party insurance then there is insurance so I would keep that hope in there at the moment. Remember that the police have to apply for a summons within 6 months as this is only a magistrates court matter so there is a time limit on them. The insurance companies don't normally inform the Police after the event it is normally the police who investigate at the time or soon after by issuing a form to produce the insurance, although it seems to be done now on their computer systems which all seem to be joined together now. So unless she was reported at the time I would rest easy for the time being.

 

What's wrong with your Dad? What problems are you wrestling with?

[heliosuk]

Well Dad has something called Lewes Body disease which is easiest described as a mix of Alzheimers and Parkinsons with dementia thrown in for good value.

 

Anyway have been through all policy docs tonight with fine toothcomb and large magnifying glass and can see nothing that should prevent them from paying out. Further, after going through piles of old insurance docs it seems like it's been the same policy for the last 6 years so they've had their moneys worth of premiums.

 

Clause I'm relying on is as follows.

 

Under Persons or classes of persons permitted to drive on the Certificate.

 

"As indicated below provided that the person driving holds or has held a driving licence to drive the vehicle and is not disqualified for the purpose of holding or obtaining such a licence, The policy holder and his or her Spouse/Civil Partner only."

 

Can confirm that mum has always been the main driver, well certainley records exist for the past few years anyway.

 

So she's quite a bit more happier than before now. Thanks guys for pointing out what to look for.

[heliosuk]

Bump, any more thoughts or opinions?