The Lemon Fool

I own three cars. My name is on all the registration documents.

1. Is mine. I insure, tax it and maintain it and drive it all the time.
2. Is also mine. My daughter insures it, taxes it, maintains it and drives it all the time.
3. Is also mine. Another daughter insures it, taxes it, maintains it and drives it all the time.

I bought the cars and I am not about to give them away.

No problems with insurance.

Pea.

Peanutte wrote:1. Is mine. I insure, tax it and maintain it and drive it all the time.
2. Is also mine. My daughter insures it, taxes it, maintains it and drives it all the time.
3. Is also mine. Another daughter insures it, taxes it, maintains it and drives it all the time.

I bought the cars and I am not about to give them away.

No problems with insurance.

I think the point has been made, and the poster of the blanket "only an owner can insure" statement has acknowledged the mistake

Scott.

Peanutte wrote:I own three cars. My name is on all the registration documents.

1. Is mine. I insure, tax it and maintain it and drive it all the time.
2. Is also mine. My daughter insures it, taxes it, maintains it and drives it all the time.
3. Is also mine. Another daughter insures it, taxes it, maintains it and drives it all the time.

I bought the cars and I am not about to give them away. No problems with insurance.

Yes, but in the case of (2) and (3) has a claim been made where the daughter was paid rather than you, the owner?

Melonfool wrote:
It also does not say I have to drive more miles than he named driver nor that if he were to use the car more than me the insurance would be invalidated, it doesn't say anything like any of that. You'd think if it could invalidate the insurance they would make a point of mentioning it? Thus, I don't think this is the case on my insurance, though I don't know about his, I don't think it's with the same insurer.

They don't need to specifically mention it, it's called fraud. The 'main driver' is what one might suppose it is.

As an instance (and there are plenty of references to be found) see https://www.policyexpert.co.uk/insuranc ... ce-claims/ (first reason for claim rejection listed).

This was made much of a number of years ago by the insurance industry as I noted earlier (at the time of the first sharp increase in premiums for young drivers) as they'd found that parents were routinely insuring their offsprings' cars listing themselves as the main driver when the kids were in fact the main drivers. Because of the spiralling cost of claims insurance company investigators are increasingly vigilant.

quelquod wrote:

Melonfool wrote:
It also does not say I have to drive more miles than he named driver nor that if he were to use the car more than me the insurance would be invalidated, it doesn't say anything like any of that. You'd think if it could invalidate the insurance they would make a point of mentioning it? Thus, I don't think this is the case on my insurance, though I don't know about his, I don't think it's with the same insurer.

They don't need to specifically mention it, it's called fraud. The 'main driver' is what one might suppose it is.

As an instance (and there are plenty of references to be found) see https://www.policyexpert.co.uk/insuranc ... ce-claims/ (first reason for claim rejection listed).

This was made much of a number of years ago by the insurance industry as I noted earlier (at the time of the first sharp increase in premiums for young drivers) as they'd found that parents were routinely insuring their offsprings' cars listing themselves as the main driver when the kids were in fact the main drivers. Because of the spiralling cost of claims insurance company investigators are increasingly vigilant.

So, you missed my question about the time period?

If OH drove 24 miles one day and I drove 25 and had an accident, I would not be covered (and we would be convicted of fraud) because he was merely 'fronting' and I was actually the main driver?

That's clearly nonsense, isn't it?

I suspect this is only true where there is an intent to deceive. Where in fact what actually happened with us was that for a period of time he didn't need to drive as much, my old car became unreliable and I had more need to use the car, plus his is bigger and more comfortable. No intent to deceive at all.

If what you say is true then I reckon about 90% of all two-car households are in trouble because it is VERY common to have a large car insured in the man's name, a smaller car insured in the woman's name and for the large car to be the one mostly used by both of them when a car is needed to go shopping, drop the kids off, go on holiday etc. Which could well result in the second driver doing more miles than the main driver. It's certainly how most of my friends seem to manage their cars.

Mel