Sorry! Missed that one...
Thinking about fronting? read this first....
- Thread starter Dr House
- Start date
Sorry! Missed that one...
This is what I'm not sure about myself. Whether he's fronting or not, it sounds like he's been miss-sold an insurance policy to me.
From what I've been told BMW Insurance has nothing to do with BMW UK; the company that sells BMW cars.
Seems silly and it very could be legitimate that he bought it on finance as a gift for his dad and is a named driver and shares it with his dad. But hey dont let that stop us condeming the guy who just sufferd a car jacking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,566
- Location
- Bucks
Well, let's be really suspicious and suggest that he hasn't suffered a car jacking as such.
Aye, it sounds like BMW insurance is just a licensed name on the header of the policy.
IIRC all consumer insurance policies, regardless of if they are for a car, house (or contents), holiday etc are based on "utmost trust" or some such thing*, where by the Insurance companies have to rely on the insuree being honest with them (the costs of checking out every possible policy just for a quote would be huge).
The flip side of that is that if you lie to, or mislead the insurance company they potentially have a fairly simple, well tried in court get out clause when it comes to claim time if their checks show you lied about something serious to have affected the policy.
I suspect it will come down to what was said, or ticked when the insurance policy was taken out, lying about who is the registered keeper would probably void it, let alone any question of who is the main driver.
The whole thing sounds rather dodgy to me, especially given we're only hearing his side of things, which he will (either on purpose or just out of human nature) probably be putting himself in the best light.
*I can't think of the proper legal term I've seen mentioned by insurers.
IIRC all consumer insurance policies, regardless of if they are for a car, house (or contents), holiday etc are based on "utmost trust" or some such thing*, where by the Insurance companies have to rely on the insuree being honest with them (the costs of checking out every possible policy just for a quote would be huge).
The flip side of that is that if you lie to, or mislead the insurance company they potentially have a fairly simple, well tried in court get out clause when it comes to claim time if their checks show you lied about something serious to have affected the policy.
I suspect it will come down to what was said, or ticked when the insurance policy was taken out, lying about who is the registered keeper would probably void it, let alone any question of who is the main driver.
The whole thing sounds rather dodgy to me, especially given we're only hearing his side of things, which he will (either on purpose or just out of human nature) probably be putting himself in the best light.
*I can't think of the proper legal term I've seen mentioned by insurers.
Except the fact that:
- the named driver is the one making the finance payments on it
- the "main" driver has a policy on another vehicle (RAV4), the named doesn't
As much as I have sympathy for the guy it does sound like he is the main driver, a few times in the linked threat he's used possessive words when talking about the car.
What I'm not quite sure about is a) how the finance is relevant to insurance other than attempting to prove who the owner was (who might not necessarily be the main driver) and b) if there were T&Cs stating that the finance owner had to be the main driver then wouldn't that have got flagged at the point the insurance policy was taken out?
I suppose if it went to court it could come down to a balance of probabilities - i.e. whether there was intent to "obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception" vs what responsibility his insurance company had in verifying (and where necessary voiding) the policy if it didn't mean their T&Cs before this all happened.
IANAL though so *shrug*
That's my problem, what if a 18yo boy as named second driver drive dads car ONCE or first time, crash..........how prove it? If fronting is illegal then insurance company should not sell policy like that.
So for every policy, insurance companies should check all your documents, how you financed the car and also survey who is using the car the most?
For me I've got my main car in my name with insurance in my name as the main driver, the wife has been added as a second driver. My wife never drives my car but I've added her name to bring the premiums down.
For the wifes car, the car is registered in my name, the insurance is in my name with the wife as a second but named main driver. So is what I'm doing insurance wise wrong then? I've always declared that the wife will be the main driver of her car and to date no insurance company has queried this.
For the wifes car, the car is registered in my name, the insurance is in my name with the wife as a second but named main driver. So is what I'm doing insurance wise wrong then? I've always declared that the wife will be the main driver of her car and to date no insurance company has queried this.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,154
- Location
- In a house
The difference being you have TOLD them she is the main driver... They will happily add her and asses the policy according to her cost..
Not a problem.
I would think so yeah as she is driving it the most she needs to be put as the main driver.
If she were to have a crash they would look into it and see that you have another car already and that would suggest that its unlikely that with 2 cars between you that you are the main driver for both.
A big reason my dad was worried about putting me as a named driver on his Suzuki Alto was because he was insured on 3 other cars he drives.
If i was to crash then they would see my dad was named driver on several car and would assume that i was fronting and that it was really mine.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,154
- Location
- In a house
Not sure on this one.. Insurance usually pays market value, and can leave you to argue up an offer with evidence of value.
However, some policies have an agreed value which can change things.
In this case, I dont know if being financed makes any difference. Insurance is not supposed to leave you out of pocket after an accident.
*edit* I would imagine it will depend on the agreed terms.
Last edited:
They would pay out what the car is worth - determined by the cost to replace it with a close as possible alternative (ie. a second hand one with similar age, mileage, spec etc.).
GAP insurance can make up the difference between insurance and finance settlement, if you so wish.
GAP insurance can make up the difference between insurance and finance settlement, if you so wish.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 387
Some policies pay out the list price of a vehicle if it is less than a year old.
No cause for concern? It is exactly the same situation that the guy in the linked posts was in! The only thing that COULD be different is the usage, but we have no concrete proof of who used the BMW the most, so everything else is just speculation.
Why are people still convinced that this serves as an example not to front? From what I've read, it is a technicality in BMW Insurance's terms and condition (foolishly) stating that the finance holder should be down as the main driver. Fronting has sweet bugger all to do with this, and even then there is absoultely ZERO proof, other than of course what people want to assume.