Legal to have same car insured under two policies?

Honest John Back Room » Legal matters
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Tue 5 Jul 2011 10:33
Legal to have same car insured under two policies? - bazzaman

Does anyone know if it is legitimate to have the same car insured by two different people under two separate policies (e.g. my wife and myself) at the same time?

I've read some comments on forums where people suggest that it is not legal - on the grounds that it would be fraud to claim for the same event (e.g. write off of car) from two insurers. My view is that it is not an issue in respect of having the same car insured twice, but would be fraud to make full claims against both insurers following such an insured event. In fact the insurers specifically cater for the same risk being covered under multiple policies with clauses such as "If at the time a claim is made under this policy any other policy exists that would cover the claim, we will pay only our share of the claim unless it says otherwise in this policy".

Any views / experts out there?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 5 Jul 2011 11:55
Legal to have same car insured under two policies? - RT

I don't see why it's illegal as long as ownership and registered keeper are declared accurately on both policies. As you're already clear, it would be fraud to claim twice for the same incident - you may be obliged to claim on both policies and allow the insurers to share the costs, in which case you'd lose both NCDs.

However, I can't for the life of me see why you'd want to?

Edited by RT on 05/07/2011 at 11:56

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 5 Jul 2011 12:01
Legal to have same car insured under two policies? - TeeCee

Let's assume for a moment that it were legal and put it this way: Say you park the thing up the backside of someone's new Ferrari and you claim on Policy #1. Insurer #1 investigates, finds that vehicle is also covered by Policy #2 and decides that Insurer #2 is liable due to the clause you mention.

Insurer #2 decides that actually Insurer #1 is liable, as they have the same clause in their policy and a long, drawn out legal catfight ensues between the two.

Meantime the insurer of the Ferrari, getting nowhere with its claim as both your insurers sling handbags at each other, sues you personally for the cost of fixing it plus any associated injury / credit hire costs and wins. Both #1 and #2 point out that their reimbursing you will only occur once their disagreement is resolved. Your car is sat in a workshop with its nose stove in, with no chance of getting it fixed in the foreseeable future and now the bankruptcy lawyers are sharpening their knives.

I believe that this is why it is illegal, to protect you not the insurers.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

We give you the low down on how to save on insurance, little-known tricks and tips, what insurance groups mean and how to use insurance aggregators to beat insurers.

Insurance group finder and how to save on insurance