Car insurance-named driver accident

[Colby]

hi
My son had a 3rd party policy that covered himself, my younger son ands also myself.

My younger son had an accident that was his fault and I was the passenger and I suffered injuries as did the occupants of the car we hit which haven't been settled.

Any way renewal has now arrived and it's almost €6k so trying to shop around...

I am just confused about who renewal, what do I answer for each of us my eldest son wasn't driving nor was he in the car is the claim against him as the policyholder ( eldest son) or does it go against youngest son as driver? Also as I was injured do I need to disclose this?

I know I will have to forget about covering the youngest lad but want to be sure I am answering correctly for myself and other lad? When I answer yes companies won't quote which I can't understand as it wasn't eldest guys fault he wasn't even in the car.

Can anyone confirm?
Thanks
C.

 

[cremeegg]

I'm very interested in this issue of a named driver accident as well. My wife had an accident while driving as a named driver on my policy, now we both seem to have a claim showing on our policies.

 

[mathepac]

With claims outstanding you are stuck with the current insurer. The questions requiring responses are usually very clear, something along the lines of "Have you had an accident or a claim in the last X (usually 5) years?" For both of your sons the answer is "Yes". One son was driving (NCB gone) and the other was the policy holder (NCB also gone). Loadings applied in both cases.

I know it's probably not what you hoped to hear, but that's how this named driver and cross insuring works.

Cross insuring is where my wife and I name each other as drivers on our individual policies. No matter who has the accident in which car, both policies are now NCB-less.

 

[Colby]

Thanks for that Mathepac, it's not at all what I wanted to hear, eldest guy needs the car for work I understand loss of Ncb and loading the younger guy but the 3 things, eldest guy hammered for something that wasn't his fault is what is the hardest to swallow
C.

 

[Ravima]

I'm very interested in this issue of a named driver accident as well. My wife had an accident while driving as a named driver on my policy, now we both seem to have a claim showing on our policies.

That may be so, but only one NCB should be affected, under the dual indemnity (NCB) agreement. If you have comprehensive insurance, your insurers will pay for your damage without affecting your NCB. It will still be recorded as a claim/payment. With most of the Irish Insurers, the drivers policy deals with the TP claim under the dual indemnity agreement. If one of the insurers is not party to the dual indemnity agreement, then the drivers policy will deal with the Third Party claim and claim 50% contribution from your policy, again without affecting your NCB.

Put simply, only one policy is punished, that of the driver.

 

[Colby]

That may be so, but only one NCB should be affected, under the dual indemnity (NCB) agreement. If you have comprehensive insurance, your insurers will pay for your damage without affecting your NCB. It will still be recorded as a claim/payment. With most of the Irish Insurers, the drivers policy deals with the TP claim under the dual indemnity agreement. If one of the insurers is not party to the dual indemnity agreement, then the drivers policy will deal with the Third Party claim and claim 50% contribution from your policy, again without affecting your NCB.

Put simply, only one policy is punished, that of the driver.

Tacoma does that last sentence not contradict my point that the driver but also seperately the policy holder ( who wasn't party to accident) are both screwed when trying to get insurance?
Tks

 

[cremeegg]

I think we are getting conflicting advice here.

When a named driver, who separately has their own insurance has an accident are both policies affected by the claim.

Mathepac seems to say yes

One son was driving (NCB gone) and the other was the policy holder (NCB also gone). Loadings applied in both cases.

that's how this named driver and cross insuring works.

Cross insuring is where my wife and I name each other as drivers on our individual policies. No matter who has the accident in which car, both policies are now NCB-less.

Ravima seems to say no

only one NCB should be affected, under the dual indemnity (NCB) agreement. If you have comprehensive insurance, your insurers will pay for your damage without affecting your NCB.

It will still be recorded as a claim/payment. With most of the Irish Insurers, the drivers policy deals with the TP claim under the dual indemnity agreement. If one of the insurers is not party to the dual indemnity agreement, then the drivers policy will deal with the Third Party claim and claim 50% contribution from your policy, again without affecting your NCB.

Put simply, only one policy is punished, that of the driver.

Can anyone reconcile these positions.

 

[Colby]

RavIma apologies for the predictive text in earlier reply!!! Just noticed now
C

 

[mathepac]

That may be so, but only one NCB should be affected, under the dual indemnity (NCB) agreement. If you have comprehensive insurance, your insurers will pay for your damage without affecting your NCB.

Reading the OP carefully, there is only a 3rd party policy in operation and it is the one policy with named drivers in operation on the older son's car. The younger son and the Da are the named drivers. The older son is being loaded and has lost his NCB as his policy was the one in operation at the time of the accident. Unless of course I read the OP incorrectly.

 

[peteb]

Thanks for that Mathepac, it's not at all what I wanted to hear, eldest guy needs the car for work I understand loss of Ncb and loading the younger guy but the 3 things, eldest guy hammered for something that wasn't his fault is what is the hardest to swallow
C.

It doesnt make a difference whether its his fault or not. It's his policy. A named driver on his policy hit someone. His insurer paid out. His no claims bonus is now gone as he had to seek an indemnity under his policy. The accident was caused by a named driver driving under his policy with his consent. Therefore he suffers.

 

[Colby]

It doesnt make a difference whether its his fault or not. It's his policy. A named driver on his policy hit someone. His insurer paid out. His no claims bonus is now gone as he had to seek an indemnity under his policy. The accident was caused by a named driver driving under his policy with his consent. Therefore he suffers.

Hi
Just to clarify eldest son was policyholder younger son and myself named drivers and I also have my own policy covering me on my own car.

At time of accident eldest guy had 4 years no claims unfortunately no protection though I now can't see how much difference this would make.

What I expected to happen was

Son 1 to lose NCB.

Son 2 to be heavily rated on any type cover as responsible for accident and claim

Me; no change.

So we can now get 3rd party on his own for €3700 for son 1 with existing insurer if I input his details and ignore claim he can get fully comp with another insurer for €850, this insurer won't quote once I disclose claim even though he had no involvement so as well as losing nct base quote is over 400% higher which I can't make sense of!

The policy holder is much more levied than the person who caused the crash so it's not remotely risk based which insurance is meant to be!!

I just make no sense what so ever of it...reckon uninsured drivers which I don't for one minute condone will grow when you see cases like that.

Thanks for replies

 

[mathepac]

Exactly as I read OP. Outcome is exactly as I predicted too. Very tough but that's how it all works.

 

[Branz]

Exactly as I read OP. Outcome is exactly as I predicted too. Very tough but that's how it all works.

So is the import of this for the normal setup where husband and wife are named drivers on each others cars is that having a claim as a named driver is worse than having a claim on your own policy?

 

[peteb]

Its not a no blame bonus, its a no claim bonus. The policy holder had to make a claim so its he that is affected the most.

 

[Branz]

Its not a no blame bonus, its a no claim bonus. The policy holder had to make a claim so its he that is affected the most.

Yes but I was not aware that both of us would lose the NCB if I have an accident driving her car or visa versa, even though the claim is not on the named driver's policy.

 

[peteb]

See Ravima's post at number 5. My point referred to the OP.

 

[DirectDevil]

I'm very interested in this issue of a named driver accident as well. My wife had an accident while driving as a named driver on my policy, now we both seem to have a claim showing on our policies.

A simple query that raises some technical complexities .

LEGAL LIABILITY.

Legally, a claim lies against both the owner of a car and the driver where there has been an accident.
The driver is legally liable for their own negligence.
The owner is legally liable vicariously for the negligence of the driver. This assumes the driver had authority from the owner to drive. This is based on agency but that is a whole other exam question in itself.

INSURANCE.

It is possible for two policies to cover the same loss.

Your policy would operate to indemnify you and your wife as owner and driver respectively. This presumes that you own the car.

Your wife's policy would operate to indemnify her as a driver of your car.
This presumes that your wife's policy covers her to drive other cars.
I do not know if your wife's policy would indemnify you in respect of your liability arising from her driving of your car. The policy wording should answer that.

This might sound confusing. However, if you look at a certificate [not the policy]of motor insurance you will see that there are clear distinctions between people covered to drive, people whose use is covered and people whose legal liability is covered.

CONTRIBUTION.

Where 2 or more insurance policies cover the same loss the insurers should share the loss proportionately - known as contribution. However, there are rules that cover the subject of contribution (go back to 1877 if you are killed by curiosity ) and one of those says that the interests covered must be the same. So, if the rules of contribution are satisfied both policies may cover it. However, some policies might contain a condition excluding contribution in which case that idea is killed !

AND FINALLY.....

I would expect that this should end up being dealt with by one insurer and that only one NCB should be affected.

Assume that your wife was totally liable for the accident. She incurs liability for herself. She incurs vicarious liability for you - as explained above. However, you in turn are not prevented from seeking recovery from her for any vicarious liability that she has incurred for you. I would argue therefore that one policy should end up dealing with this anyhow as to seek indemnity from your wife would be a circuitous exercise.

 

[PinkLloyd]

it's not remotely risk based which insurance is meant to be!!

Insurance in Ireland is based on how much can be charged before people object.

My wife never completed learning to drive and hasn't sat behind the wheel of a car in 14 years, so a few years ago I decided to take her off the policy (she had been a named driver in the hope that she might take it up again sometime). At renewal time, after I was quoted a figure, I told the lady I was dealing with there was no point having someone who can't drive and has no license as a named driver on the policy.

My premium went up.

 

[Leo]

Insurance in Ireland is based on how much can be charged before people object.

My wife never completed learning to drive and hasn't sat behind the wheel of a car in 14 years, so a few years ago I decided to take her off the policy (she had been a named driver in the hope that she might take it up again sometime). At renewal time, after I was quoted a figure, I told the lady I was dealing with there was no point having someone who can't drive and has no license as a named driver on the policy.

My premium went up.

That's standard and, from a friend who worked in one of the major players, is backed by their statistics. People with a partner as a named driver are more likely to share a car, are likely to travel together more, and are less likely to drive dangerously with their partners present, and so have fewer accidents.

 

[PinkLloyd]

That's standard and, from a friend who worked in one of the major players, is backed by their statistics. People with a partner as a named driver are more likely to share a car, are likely to travel together more, and are less likely to drive dangerously with their partners present, and so have fewer accidents.

I get that, but if my wife is not able to drive and doesn't have a license? How can it be less of a risk to have her as a named driver? I'm not really arguing the point, it's just one example of how rigged the whole scam actually is.