RDH wrote:The prophets of doom are speaking - how do the insurance company know your Dad(or whoever) doesn't drive it! - that's irrelevant anyway!
Why it is irrelevant?
Either it doesn't matter who the sole or primary user of a car is, in which case they have no interest in who uses it, and you're right it would then be irrelevant.
Or it does matter who the sole or primary user of a car is, in which case the fact that they don't know it's really you and not your Dad is the difference between you being insured and not.
The reason it's likely to matter is pretty obvious to anyone - you're insuring two cars for the price of one and the insurance companies tend to think each car should be insured for itself with the proper usage declared and all material facts disclosed.
When looking for a cheap shed - I asked Elephant whether I needed to insure a second car - he said as long as the car itself was insured - my existing policy would cover it! But the car itself had to be insured by someone! Therefore if I was to drive my Dad's X-type Jag, with his permission and hit somebody - I'm insured under my policy, on a 3rd party basis! (he'd be a wee bit pissed off tho!)
Did you tell them you planned on purchasing and being the sole or primary user of a second car that someone else was going to register and insure TPO just so you could drive it under your existing policy?
Might be worth asking exactly that question if not. If you did ask that and they said yes it would be OK I am somewhat surprised, but well done.
Insurance companies are number crunchers; for a small claim they won't go to town on working out how to wriggle out of paying because it's cheaper to pay out. For a huge claim they will try anything they can to avoid paying or to recover their costs after paying.
Like I said, it will probably never happen, but it's a very large financial risk that even insurance-adverse types like myself won't take.
Cheers,
Robin
