I've tried searching for the answer but cannot find a scenario like ours.
Basically, step-son has a car with about 2 months insurance to run. He then intends getting rid of car before college but wants the one years no claims. He's asked his mother can he transfer the remainder of the policy to cover her car for the remaining month - clutch gone on his and it needs taxing.
Now I've said you cannot have two policies on one car. His is third party and her's fully comp. Am I right?
Thwn again, I don't think the remaining month of cover would be enough to insurance a 2001 Seicento when his is a H Reg Citroen AX 1.4d even if it was possible.
Note the key her is that (A) he keep his policy running for the remaining month and (B) he's like to drive the car but he's too young to be named driver on wife's policy.
Ta
Rob
|
You cannot have two policies operating for one vehicle - it would be wide open to abuse and this would equally apply to whatever was being insured.
The obvious way to cover two or more drivers is to name them as additional drivers on a policy, although it's not possible in this case as you have indicated.
However, you can insure two or vehicles on one policy with some companies - in fact there's a link in the left hand column of this page for up to six on a single policy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Thanks. Your answer is exactly what I believed.
John however claims he'd asked his insurance (Direct Line) and they said it was possible. The insurance probably hadn't been told the car to transfer to already had a policy running.
Personally don't want him driving the wife's car the way he drove his own (poor gearbox and clutch).
Cheers
|
|
|
>>You cannot have two policies operating for one vehicle
Too simplistic. You cannot have two policies covering the same risk. However, if one is Mother only and other is Son only then that is not the same risk, even if they are driving the same car. You would then need to be sure that the "unaccompanied" risks were not duplicated - i.e. theft. You would also have to have an insurance company who did not mind insuring you to drive a car you didn't own - again not impossible.
And having two policies covering the same risk often happens with buildings and contents cover for example, then there are quite strong rules about which policy takes precedence or how the loss is apportioned.
On cars it happens frequently accidentally.For example you are selling a car and ask for the insurance to finish at 6pm. The guy buying the car had asked for his insurance to commence at 9am. Of course its not deliberate, but it happens and insurers are aware of this and other ways that it does happen.
So, I am not saying that you will find an insurer willing to do it, nor that it is a sensible approach, but it is possible.
|
>>You cannot have two policies covering the same risk>>
That was what I was meaning...:-)
You can, however, have two policies to cover one overall risk - one, for instance, for sporting events or activities such as sky diving may cover personal injury etc and the second for third party injury or property damage coverage - where one policy may not cover all eventualities or part of the insurance cover may be included in a membership or affiliation fee.
But the terms are/will be clearly defined as you state.
This is intended to ensure that no one is able to double up a claim by having/taking out two policies for a "single" risk, which is the reason why my allusion to abuse arises.
Insurance companies are very much better prepared these days thanks to more general sharing of database information.
I've been with the Pru for house and contents insurance for several decades. A couple of years ago it appointed Churchill as its underwriter and, after the first year, I tried to find out online whether Churchill's own cover would be less costly if I switched.
I only got so far and then was advised I couldn't delve further...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
If he's only talking about one month's worth of insurance would he not just be better off letting it run on his old car? He can always SORN the car to get around the tax problem, assumiing he actually has off road space for it.
Blue
|
|
Have I missed something in my absence from the UK? Even though you now have to have the registration of a vehicle named on an insurance certificate, I thought there was still an insurance element for the driver or it would not be possible to drive cars you don't own on the strength of your own insurance policy. So nothing wrong with Blue's suggestion about letting it run for a month on an unused vehicle. I appreciate we are talking third party so maybe no other vehicle clause.
|
|
|
|
|
