Car insurance - death of policyholder

[stewamax]

When the holder of a car insurance policy dies, does it become immediately void or can other named drivers continue to use it until the end of its paid-up term (assuming the insurers are notified, since it is a material change to the use of the car)

[PinkDalek]

When the holder of a car insurance policy dies, does it become immediately void or can other named drivers continue to use it until the end of its paid-up term (assuming the insurers are notified, since it is a material change to the use of the car)

I've only looked here, which suggests you need to check the policy but it is unlikely a named driver will still be covered:

https://bereavementadvice.org/topics/re ... /insurance

[gryffron]

I would suggest the policyholder can by definition, no longer be the "main driver". So I would expect that to negate most policies.

Even more annoyingly, I would bet the policyholder's NCD dies with them, so the other named drivers may find it considerably more expensive to re-insure the same vehicle. Insurance companies are under no obligation to offer NCD to previously named drivers, but many will (at least some), so ring and ask. Don't just rely on an internet search for prices.

gryff

[pochisoldi]

When the holder of a car insurance policy dies, does it become immediately void or can other named drivers continue to use it until the end of its paid-up term (assuming the insurers are notified, since it is a material change to the use of the car)

Applying some logic, before googling for details.

Cover for named drivers does not cease immediately on death. It is reasonable for a named driver to assume that they are insured, at least until the moment that they discover the main policyholder has died. Withdrawing cover under those circumstances would almost certainly be deemed to be an unfair contract term.

Most insurers would allow some form of cover to continue, if for nothing beyond the fact that insurance policies are yearly contracts, and stories of people getting 6 points + £200 fine because of a sudden death aren't good publicity. In addition it could be argued that if the car was damaged/stolen/caught fire, the deceased's estate is still entitled to the cover afforded by the insurance policy.

PochiSoldi

[didds]

^^^ what pochisoldier said.

You also enter the realms of a family holiday 100s of miles from home leaving everybody but the main driver totally stranded with a perfectly usable car, because the main driver died whilst on holiday. How ridiculous would that be?

Then you come down to the question - what is a "main " driver? The one named on the policy? The one that's done most mileage? Must the be the same? (I can think of obvious reasons why especially in any short term a named driver has driven more miles than a "main driver" etc.)

didds

[PinkDalek]

The Halifax bereavement guide https://static.halifax.co.uk/assets/pdf ... -guide.pdf includes:

"Car insurance providers – if you’re a
named driver, you may not be covered
if the policyholder passes away, as if the
policy was in their name it becomes void
after they die. Speak to the deceased’s
provider as soon as possible, explaining
the situation, to gain a bit of time to make
new arrangements."

Other places suggest temporary cover (some mention 30 days) may be given but the policy might need to be put in the name of the Estate's administrators and the NCD may no longer be available.

[melonfool]

^^^ what pochisoldier said.

You also enter the realms of a family holiday 100s of miles from home leaving everybody but the main driver totally stranded with a perfectly usable car, because the main driver died whilst on holiday. How ridiculous would that be?

Then you come down to the question - what is a "main " driver? The one named on the policy? The one that's done most mileage? Must the be the same? (I can think of obvious reasons why especially in any short term a named driver has driven more miles than a "main driver" etc.)

didds

The first is not ridiculous in my view - it is ridiculous to assume cover continues. It's annoying but not hard to arrange short term cover.

The second - the main driver is the one named on the policy as the policy-holder. Some insurers may do it differently but that's the general rule. The contract is with one person, they may add another to their policy but only one holds the contract, they are the main driver. When you buy insurance it asks you "are you the main driver?". For a while I did way more mileage in the OH [now ex] car than he did, he was still the main driver as he was the policy-holder (more to the point, he paid for the insurance).

I agree that you would need time to be told the main driver had died, maybe they die at work and you are happily pottering around doing the weekly shopping, it seems a bit much that you become uninsured without knowing so if you then bump the car when parking you're not insured if the main driver died ten minutes before and you didn't even know, so I would assume there is some leniency there.

Mel

[quelquod]

The first is not ridiculous in my view - it is ridiculous to assume cover continues. It's annoying but not hard to arrange short term cover.

The second - the main driver is the one named on the policy as the policy-holder. Some insurers may do it differently but that's the general rule. The contract is with one person, they may add another to their policy but only one holds the contract, they are the main driver. When you buy insurance it asks you "are you the main driver?". For a while I did way more mileage in the OH [now ex] car than he did, he was still the main driver as he was the policy-holder (more to the point, he paid for the insurance).

I agree that you would need time to be told the main driver had died, maybe they die at work and you are happily pottering around doing the weekly shopping, it seems a bit much that you become uninsured without knowing so if you then bump the car when parking you're not insured if the main driver died ten minutes before and you didn't even know, so I would assume there is some leniency there.

Mel

I disagree

Firstly the policyholder doesn't need to be the main driver. I'm the policyholder for my wife's car insurance but I'm only the named driver for her car. Been like this for years with several different insurers. I don't know if this is provided for in on-line form-filling, but handling through my broker hasn't been any problem. I wonder what the situation is expected to be with a multi-car policy (I don't have one)?

There's nothing at all in my policy to indicate that it ceases on my death. The point isn't covered, never seen a policy where it is. Same for my house insurance by the way. Normally contracts aren't voided by the death of one party but become the liability or benefit of the estate (similarly to the 'death' of the insurer as it were).

Rather as a by-the-way had the insurer discovered and could prove that you did 'way more mileage' than the declared main driver this would have invalidated the insurance in the event of a claim. This has been the case for many years to catch the situations where parents would insure a car for their offspring and try to reduce the apparent risk by naming themselves as the main driver.

[didds]

^^^ what pochisoldier said.

You also enter the realms of a family holiday 100s of miles from home leaving everybody but the main driver totally stranded with a perfectly usable car, because the main driver died whilst on holiday. How ridiculous would that be?

Then you come down to the question - what is a "main " driver? The one named on the policy? The one that's done most mileage? Must the be the same? (I can think of obvious reasons why especially in any short term a named driver has driven more miles than a "main driver" etc.)

didds

The first is not ridiculous in my view - it is ridiculous to assume cover continues. It's annoying but not hard to arrange short term cover.l

There's was no "assumption" made It was a position of my own thinking.



It strikes me as well it would mean that if the named driver was a cabbage on a life support system but medically "alive" the named drivers could drive his/her vehicle away from the area of the tragic holiday accident/whatever. But if he dies ... they can't.

I think that's ridiculous. Others MMV.

didds

[Lootman]

Firstly the policyholder doesn't need to be the main driver.

That would have to be the case simply because you can own a car but not be a driver at all. Only the owner of a vehicle can take out insurance for that vehicle. And it is ultimately the car that is insured and not the driver.

As a practical matter there would be a serious problem if a policy was deemed to be invalidated immediately upon the death of the named driver and then, minutes later, that vehicle killed someone. I would assume that the estate of the accident victim would then sue the insurance company that was seeking to decline the claim. And a court would determine the outcome. The fact that the policy might have such a clause in it does not mean that it would be upheld in court, especially if it was seen to be prejudicial, capricious or contrary to the public interest.

[JonE]

For a while I did way more mileage in the OH [now ex] car than he did, he was still the main driver as he was the policy-holder (more to the point, he paid for the insurance).
l

Being the policy-holder does not, in itself, make that person the main driver. For a standard policy application the applicant for cover would declare themself to be, as a matter of fact, the main driver. If a named driver uses the vehicle more than the policy-holder then that named driver is, in reality, the main driver. That wouldn't normally matter if the two were living as husband and wife but insurers take a very dim view if they reckon the policy-holder (having declared themself to be the main driver) is 'fronting' for someone who represents a different level of risk (often a child).

Cheers!

[melonfool]

Firstly the policyholder doesn't need to be the main driver. I'm the policyholder for my wife's car insurance but I'm only the named driver for her car. Been like this for years with several different insurers. I don't know if this is provided for in on-line form-filling, but handling through my broker hasn't been any problem. I wonder what the situation is expected to be with a multi-car policy (I don't have one)?

There's nothing at all in my policy to indicate that it ceases on my death. The point isn't covered, never seen a policy where it is. Same for my house insurance by the way. Normally contracts aren't voided by the death of one party but become the liability or benefit of the estate (similarly to the 'death' of the insurer as it were).

Rather as a by-the-way had the insurer discovered and could prove that you did 'way more mileage' than the declared main driver this would have invalidated the insurance in the event of a claim. This has been the case for many years to catch the situations where parents would insure a car for their offspring and try to reduce the apparent risk by naming themselves as the main driver.

Well, I have now read my insurance cover to cover and you're right it does not mention death. It does mention you have to let them know if anything changes....
It also says the main policy holder must inform the named drivers if the policy changes - pretty tricky if they are dead.

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.

But, anyway, as I said, it was only 'for a while' so not sure over what time period your insurer says the main driver must drive more than the named driver - is that per day, week, year? What about when we drive to France on holiday and share the driving, do we have to make sure he drives one mile more than me?

Mel

[Lootman]

For a standard policy application the applicant for cover would declare themself to be, as a matter of fact, the main driver.

But what if the applicant can't drive? How can they designate themselves as any kind of driver? An example might be a blind person who buys a car to enable others to drive her around. Or someone who doesn't have a license but can afford to hire a chauffer?

For anyone to buy insurance they have to have an "insurable interest" in what is being insured. What that means is that I can only insure a car or house that is mine. I can't take out a policy on your car, for instance.

So the owner of a policy is the owner of the asset being insured. Who can drive it is a different and contingent matter, and may vary over time. For example, I believe that my policy allows anyone (with a license) to drive it.

[melonfool]

For a standard policy application the applicant for cover would declare themself to be, as a matter of fact, the main driver.

But what if the applicant can't drive? How can they designate themselves as any kind of driver? An example might be a blind person who buys a car to enable others to drive her around. Or someone who doesn't have a license but can afford to hire a chauffer?

For anyone to buy insurance they have to have an "insurable interest" in what is being insured. What that means is that I can only insure a car or house that is mine. I can't take out a policy on your car, for instance.

So the owner of a policy is the owner of the asset being insured. Who can drive it is a different and contingent matter, and may vary over time. For example, I believe that my policy allows anyone (with a license) to drive it.

Usually that last would be 'with the owner's express permission' I think.

Mel

[ten0rman]

Mel,
I am the Registered Keeper of all the cars that we have owned.. I dealt with all the formalities when we bought them, although it has to said that for the present car, the majority of the payment came from two of my wife's fixed rate cash ISA's which were maturing. All our cars have always been shown as having two drivers. Some years ago, the then insurance company started asking awkward questions about annual mileage, and how it was split between us. My estimate was that my wife probably did most of the driving - out of 13000, probably 8K or 9K. She was then said to be the main driver, and has been shown as thus ever since, and other than the initial sorting out, we have had no problem whatsoever with the main driver not being the owner or RK.

A few years ago, I bought an el cheapo car for our youngest to learn on. Given the above, I wanted to keep control of the car - after all, I'd paid for it, and so I approached various insurance co's wanting to insure the car, owned by me, with him as the main driver, and me as second driver. Note, there was never any intention of "fronting". Despite the above, no insurance co would do it, so effectively, I had to give the car to the son, have it registered in his name, then pay for it to be insured in his name with me as second driver. All in all, it cost me £2K - £1k car & £1K insurance.

It seems to me that husband & wife are treated differently to father & son. But the main point is that for a husband & wife, there does not appear to be any requirement for the main driver to be the registered keeper/owner.

Regards,

ten0rman

[melonfool]

Mel,
I am the Registered Keeper of all the cars that we have owned.. I dealt with all the formalities when we bought them, although it has to said that for the present car, the majority of the payment came from two of my wife's fixed rate cash ISA's which were maturing. All our cars have always been shown as having two drivers. Some years ago, the then insurance company started asking awkward questions about annual mileage, and how it was split between us. My estimate was that my wife probably did most of the driving - out of 13000, probably 8K or 9K. She was then said to be the main driver, and has been shown as thus ever since, and other than the initial sorting out, we have had no problem whatsoever with the main driver not being the owner or RK.

A few years ago, I bought an el cheapo car for our youngest to learn on. Given the above, I wanted to keep control of the car - after all, I'd paid for it, and so I approached various insurance co's wanting to insure the car, owned by me, with him as the main driver, and me as second driver. Note, there was never any intention of "fronting". Despite the above, no insurance co would do it, so effectively, I had to give the car to the son, have it registered in his name, then pay for it to be insured in his name with me as second driver. All in all, it cost me £2K - £1k car & £1K insurance.

It seems to me that husband & wife are treated differently to father & son. But the main point is that for a husband & wife, there does not appear to be any requirement for the main driver to be the registered keeper/owner.

Regards,

ten0rman

I have never been married so not sure where 'husband and wife' comes into it. But, it does seem that this is a sensible risk based approach by the insurer. Mine has never asked who does what mileage.

Mel

[swill453]

For anyone to buy insurance they have to have an "insurable interest" in what is being insured. What that means is that I can only insure a car or house that is mine. I can't take out a policy on your car, for instance.

You can have an insurable interest without being the owner. Otherwise it would be impossible to get insurance for a leased car.

Scott.

[JonE]

For a standard policy application the applicant for cover would declare themself to be, as a matter of fact, the main driver.

But what if the applicant can't drive? How can they designate themselves as any kind of driver?

Note that I specifically referred to a "standard" policy application. Your example of a non-standard application is not relevant as different criteria would obviously apply.

I believe that my policy allows anyone (with a license) to drive it.

Although my motor policy allows any appropriately-licensed driver aged 30-70 (inc) to drive the vehicle, it is not a UK-issued policy and my recollection is that the UK norm for typical cover was (and I imagine it still is) to permit driving with the legally-required minimum for third party cover by an appropriately-licensed driver who, crucially, has their own motor insurance cover. To extend the cover in any way would usually require an adjustment in the premium.

Cheers!

[PinkDalek]

A few years ago, I bought an el cheapo car for our youngest to learn on. Given the above, I wanted to keep control of the car - after all, I'd paid for it, and so I approached various insurance co's wanting to insure the car, owned by me, with him as the main driver, and me as second driver. Note, there was never any intention of "fronting". Despite the above, no insurance co would do it, so effectively, I had to give the car to the son, have it registered in his name, then pay for it to be insured in his name with me as second driver. All in all, it cost me £2K - £1k car & £1K insurance.

We seem to be drifting some way off the main query but perhaps that has been answered.

Last year I bought an additional car, primarily for my son's use. It is beneficially mine and I remain the registered keeper. The insurance policy is in his name and I am named as an additional driver. I was not required to gift the car to him.

Was this incorrect?

Moderator Message:
I agree with PD's comment that this topic is drifting some way off the main query. If there are further points relating to the OP, please post them here. If you want to continue the "main driver" discussion, please let a mod know - ideally by reporting this post and we'll consider splitting the topic. Hope that's helpful (chas49)

[Lootman]

You can have an insurable interest without being the owner. Otherwise it would be impossible to get insurance for a leased car.

Yes, not an owner in that case but if you hire a car (or anything else) then you do have an interest in that vehicle for the duration of the hire. Having an interest means being personally exposed to some risk of loss, injury or damage. It's that interest that allows you to insure that risk.

That contrasts with me trying to insure your car, which would really be a form of me gambling on you having an accident and trying to profit from that eventuality without any risk. Ladbrokes might take that on but not Royal

For a standard policy application the applicant for cover would declare themself to be, as a matter of fact, the main driver.

But what if the applicant can't drive? How can they designate themselves as any kind of driver?

Note that I specifically referred to a "standard" policy application. Your example of a non-standard application is not relevant as different criteria would obviously apply.

Hmm, well now you are defining any case that doesn't fit your theory as being "non standard"! Back when I worked in the insurance business, I don't recall that we had two types of insurance application - one for where the owner is a driver and one where the owner is not. It was the same application. (Might vary by insurance company though).

So if your license was suspended for some reason, your insurance was not cancelled meaning that you had to re-apply for a "non standard" policy instead. Rather, there would be an endorsement and probably an increase in premium, but the same policy would continue to cover the vehicle.

We did have separate applications for personal versus commercial, individual versus fleet and so on, Just not for driver versus non-driver.

I believe that my policy allows anyone (with a license) to drive it.

Although my motor policy allows any appropriately-licensed driver aged 30-70 (inc) to drive the vehicle, it is not a UK-issued policy and my recollection is that the UK norm for typical cover was (and I imagine it still is) to permit driving with the legally-required minimum for third party cover by an appropriately-licensed driver who, crucially, has their own motor insurance cover. To extend the cover in any way would usually require an adjustment in the premium.

Of course, lots of factors can change the premium and naturally more or better coverage is pricier. I particularly wanted the most comprehensive cover I could get and, sure, it was more expensive.

Ultimately any risk can be insured if you're willing to pay enough. I'm just not sure that the risk of a primary driver dying can be totally covered in a situation like the OP's.