Would this be considered insurance fraud?

[coldste]

So I don’t work because I’m disabled. If I select the option to insure my car for social pleasure and commuting, would that be classed as fraud? The reason I’m asking is because this particular company won’t insure me for social and pleasure but they will for social pleasure and commuting. In my eyes I’m not actually getting the insurance any cheaper as I’d be paying for something I wouldn’t need.

What’s weird is when I enter the address for my new house (we haven’t moved in yet needs work doing) the company will happily insure me for social pleasure even though that house is on a duel carriage way compared to my current house being on a quiet single carriage way road

 

[paradigm]

You are misrepresenting your situation, someone who is commuting will by definition be at work, and therefore not driving during the time they are at work.

The risk profile of someone who isn’t at work at all will be different to that of someone with a 9-5 office job.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Wouldn't social pleasure and commuting cost more and all you're doing is covering your bases just in case you can work one day?

 

[Slam62]

Actually I would phone them up and ask them.

 

[tom_e]

Can't see why it would be as long as you don't then claim to have a job in the employment bit. You may get a job in the future and I'm sure there's plenty of people who stick a few business miles on their policy just in case and then never drive for business.

 

[sunn]

Last year the price between social/pleasure only and plus commuting was nearly £7 for the year, although it was on a 'modified, limited miles' policy

 

[Tee Hee Johnson]

Wouldn't social pleasure and commuting cost more and all you're doing is covering your bases just in case you can work one day?

I think in that case you call and amend the policy when/if work becomes an option.

 

[mk1_salami]

I feel like you're overthinking this. I can't see on any sane planet a claim being denied over this.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I think in that case you call and amend the policy when/if work becomes an option.

He would already be paying for it on that policy, he thinks if he pays for it they could look at it as fraud because he doesn't work.

So I don’t work because I’m disabled. If I select the option to insure my car for social pleasure and commuting, would that be classed as fraud?

 

[Rroff]

Tricky one as you could say in good faith it was with an eye towards starting work again, if that was the case, and there is some leeway on that, but doing that a whole year would potentially go against you.

Personally I dislike the whole setup with non-business insurance classes as if they want to get really technical over many what are kind of grey areas they could i.e. if you give someone a lift to work it might not actually be covered despite many people doing it daily, etc. etc.

 

[CaNsA]

If I select the option to insure my car for social pleasure and commuting, would that be classed as fraud?

No, you will not be asking the policy to respond to an event which occurred whilst commuting which makes it a moot point.

Crack on sunshine.

 

[Brando]

It won't make much difference to the premium. Some companies won't insure commuters and others won't not. So it affects policies which is where you see the price deltas.

Fraudulent would be the other way around; claiming for social use only and then commuting.

 

[Nasher]

You would be over-insured as commuting usually ups the price.