The car is still covered fully comp by the wife's insurance.
It used to be the norm that under the 'any car not belonging... or hired out to you...' clause drivers could drive virtually anything under their own insurance with FC cover (or whatever their own policy cover level was). Not surprisingly this leaves insurers open to a lot of additional risk and potential fraud, and is being closed down as a normal component of insurance cover. The norm these days is for insurers to provide only TP cover for use of other vehicles, and my understanding is that the vehicle must also be properly insured by the owner too, as well the obvious MOT + VED + being road legal etc.
You may well be covered as you state, but that doesn't make it true for all concerned and no driver should rely on his or her own policy covering them to drive any other vehicle without checking the policy wording first.
Edit - a quick Google shows that TP may not even be the case. From Honest John in the paper...
I sit as a magistrate in the Midlands and am dealing with a significant number of motorists who are being charged for driving without insurance. They have used a friend's or relative's car with permission and assumed they had third-party insurance as part of their own comprehensive cover. Sadly, insurers now seem less likely to give this third-party cover as standard. Drivers have an absolute duty to check. Failure to do so could lead to six penalty points and a significant fine.
It used to be the norm that under the 'any car not belonging... or hired out to you...' clause drivers could drive virtually anything under their own insurance with FC cover (or whatever their own policy cover level was). Not surprisingly this leaves insurers open to a lot of additional risk and potential fraud, and is being closed down as a normal component of insurance cover. The norm these days is for insurers to provide only TP cover for use of other vehicles, and my understanding is that the vehicle must also be properly insured by the owner too, as well the obvious MOT + VED + being road legal etc.
You may well be covered as you state, but that doesn't make it true for all concerned and no driver should rely on his or her own policy covering them to drive any other vehicle without checking the policy wording first.
Indeed.
My own policy has that "Insured TPO to drive any vehicle" clause but, if you read all the (very) small print on the back of the form, there's a whole paragraph of stipulations regarding stuff like how immediate family members are excluded and how the vehicle in use cannot be your primary mode of transport etc.
I'd say the OP is very lucky to have an insurer who's honest enough and proactive enough to give them the opportunity to sort this out.
I've read a lot of accounts of people who've simply paid their premiums for years on end and then, when they need to claim on their insurance, the insurer simply claims that the policy is invalid for reasons such as the OP's and refuses to pay out.
There is the question of individual risk, but that is decided at the outset. It shouldn't change after you've made a claim (if you only claimed once in a twenty-year period of having insurance, it would be unfair if that claim was randomly nearer the beginning than at the end of the end of the twenty years, and you ended up paying more for 19 years.
Of course it should. You are transferring your risk to the insurance company. You seem to be suggesting that that level of risk should be established once, and then should never be reassessed, regardless of any change in circumstance.
The premium paid doesn't change for the period of the contract of insurance following a claim, but of course it is going to change when a renewal occurs.
Most insurance is a Con in my opinion, My household Insurance goes into great detail of my cover for my inbuilt Ceramic Hob. As I have an excess to pay on any claim of £250. In fact Hob is not covered at all, as I can buy a new one for below that figure.
I find they want your premiums but never do they pay out without a fight.
13 months ago nearly to the day, I was a passenger in a car driven by my 56yr old neighbour and we were side swiped from back to front on driver's side coming off a roundabout. The car that hit us was a New Mini Cooper driven by a Teenage girl. She was most apologetic and exchanged Insurance details with my driver, She was obviously speeding and at fault in my opinion, and didn't stop until 15or20yds down the road.
I was most suprised our Insurer (CHURCHHILL) settled knock for knock and my friend had to pay first £500 of his repair bill.
Now this week , (I suppose Girl has had her renewal in) ., Insurer has written to say are we willing to go to court to defend case as she wants to settle it in court. 13 months later, I can hardly believe it.
This means that we will be paying extra on all our vehicles now for something which was not our fault. We paid the first £250 of the claim anyway and now we're paying extra on every vehicle. So those thieving scumbags have cost us a lot of money!:(
I do think when something happens to you, like theft, this should not affect your policy.
That's how insurance works. Unless you are no claims protected, if you make a claim your insurance goes up.
In the same way that if you don't make a claim you get bigger and bigger discounts.
You did get £1,250 towards the cost of replacing the wheels.
It makes you wonder why insurance companies request the same information from you every single year when you want to get a quote or apply for insurance. Everyone knows they have access to every detail about every accident or claim you've ever had, major or minor, fault or non-fault since the year dot. It wouldn't be to catch you out and provide a loophole so they don't have to pay out now would it
What happens if it's not reported though?
Say for example two cars reversing at the same time hit each other and agreed to leave it at that.
As there was no claim made, they surely wouldn't know about it until it came to reporting it at renewal?
Going back on topic, I don't know why you're so surprised OP,if you made a claim then surely the premium has to go up to cover it.
It used to be the norm that under the 'any car not belonging... or hired out to you...' clause drivers could drive virtually anything under their own insurance with FC cover
It's unlikely it would be fully comprehensive, as they would have to take account of the exact model of car you might be driving (eg. some £400,000 supercar). With third party only, as it generally is (can't remember if it's fire and theft too), the car doesn't matter because it's not covered.
Of course it should. You are transferring your risk to the insurance company. You seem to be suggesting that that level of risk should be established once, and then should never be reassessed, regardless of any change in circumstance.
But the circumstances don't really change when there is a claim, which will after all be the result of an unintentional incident, and may be entirely non-fault. People pay premiums to protect themselves from such losses without then ending up having to pay them themselves anyway because of all the extra penalties.
For example, suppose someone would have paid £300 in 2013, £300 in 2014 and £300 in £2014. However, the car gets stolen in 2014. It's replaced by the same model.
Should the 2015 premium now be £400 or £500? And the same for 2016, 2017 etc? (Forget about losing 80% no-claims on top and having to pay £2000 plus! That part was agreed.)
If this was a one-off event, then the risk for 2015 and on will not change. If the circumstances really do change (move to a different postcode for example), then that's another matter. But people shouldn't be unfairly penalised for events beyond their control: something happens, the company should pay up as they agreed, without trying to claw it back later!
It's unlikely it would be fully comprehensive, as they would have to take account of the exact model of car you might be driving (eg. some £400,000 supercar). With third party only, as it generally is (can't remember if it's fire and theft too), the car doesn't matter because it's not covered.
But the circumstances don't really change when there is a claim, which will after all be the result of an unintentional incident, and may be entirely non-fault. People pay premiums to protect themselves from such losses without then ending up having to pay them themselves anyway because of all the extra penalties.
For example, suppose someone would have paid £300 in 2013, £300 in 2014 and £300 in £2014. However, the car gets stolen in 2014. It's replaced by the same model.
Should the 2015 premium now be £400 or £500? And the same for 2016, 2017 etc? (Forget about losing 80% no-claims on top and having to pay £2000 plus! That part was agreed.)
If this was a one-off event, then the risk for 2015 and on will not change. If the circumstances really do change (move to a different postcode for example), then that's another matter. But people shouldn't be unfairly penalised for events beyond their control: something happens, the company should pay up as they agreed, without trying to claw it back later!
But the fact a car has been stolen will affect how the insurance company will look at the area as it may not be the only one to be stolen thus making the car even more of a risk, i think it would be fun to see how the loading algorithms actually work as it may give people some idea of why certain things seem so high but yet the companies only seem to make around 5-10% profit
Comments
You may well be covered as you state, but that doesn't make it true for all concerned and no driver should rely on his or her own policy covering them to drive any other vehicle without checking the policy wording first.
Edit - a quick Google shows that TP may not even be the case. From Honest John in the paper...
Indeed.
My own policy has that "Insured TPO to drive any vehicle" clause but, if you read all the (very) small print on the back of the form, there's a whole paragraph of stipulations regarding stuff like how immediate family members are excluded and how the vehicle in use cannot be your primary mode of transport etc.
I'd say the OP is very lucky to have an insurer who's honest enough and proactive enough to give them the opportunity to sort this out.
I've read a lot of accounts of people who've simply paid their premiums for years on end and then, when they need to claim on their insurance, the insurer simply claims that the policy is invalid for reasons such as the OP's and refuses to pay out.
Of course it should. You are transferring your risk to the insurance company. You seem to be suggesting that that level of risk should be established once, and then should never be reassessed, regardless of any change in circumstance.
The premium paid doesn't change for the period of the contract of insurance following a claim, but of course it is going to change when a renewal occurs.
Why is your excess £250? Seems high.
That's how insurance works. Unless you are no claims protected, if you make a claim your insurance goes up.
In the same way that if you don't make a claim you get bigger and bigger discounts.
You did get £1,250 towards the cost of replacing the wheels.
What happens if it's not reported though?
Say for example two cars reversing at the same time hit each other and agreed to leave it at that.
As there was no claim made, they surely wouldn't know about it until it came to reporting it at renewal?
Going back on topic, I don't know why you're so surprised OP,if you made a claim then surely the premium has to go up to cover it.
I chose £250 to bring my Premiums down, I have a couple of high value collections all in my joint house and contents cover,(One Clock £8000).
It's unlikely it would be fully comprehensive, as they would have to take account of the exact model of car you might be driving (eg. some £400,000 supercar). With third party only, as it generally is (can't remember if it's fire and theft too), the car doesn't matter because it's not covered.
But the circumstances don't really change when there is a claim, which will after all be the result of an unintentional incident, and may be entirely non-fault. People pay premiums to protect themselves from such losses without then ending up having to pay them themselves anyway because of all the extra penalties.
For example, suppose someone would have paid £300 in 2013, £300 in 2014 and £300 in £2014. However, the car gets stolen in 2014. It's replaced by the same model.
Should the 2015 premium now be £400 or £500? And the same for 2016, 2017 etc? (Forget about losing 80% no-claims on top and having to pay £2000 plus! That part was agreed.)
If this was a one-off event, then the risk for 2015 and on will not change. If the circumstances really do change (move to a different postcode for example), then that's another matter. But people shouldn't be unfairly penalised for events beyond their control: something happens, the company should pay up as they agreed, without trying to claw it back later!
But the fact a car has been stolen will affect how the insurance company will look at the area as it may not be the only one to be stolen thus making the car even more of a risk, i think it would be fun to see how the loading algorithms actually work as it may give people some idea of why certain things seem so high but yet the companies only seem to make around 5-10% profit