[Closed] can you insure a car twice?

no, you can't.

I'm sure my brother went with Sheila's wheels or one of the women orientated insurers 'just because he could'. Try another sexist insurers?!

+1 for alfabus
It's dual insurance - all manner of issues; the DVLA have a record via your V5C of who is responsible for insuring the vehicle under the Continous Insurance Enforcement legislation; the Motor Insurers Database will flag to the 2nd insurer - at some point - that the vehicle is already insured (by driver A) - potentially leading insurer B to VOID that policy - this would leave Driver B uninsured at that point, and if police involvement could lead to charging with driving uninsured - motoring conviction, points, fine and higher premiums. This would then have to be declared - the VOIDing of the policy; possible conviction etc - to all future insurers - limiting the number who would quote, and potentially increasing premium still further. Not worth it.

I'll abandon that idea then. Just seems a little odd if each insurer is willing to take the risk of a particular driver.
oh well, back to looking for one which can do both at a sensible price (Shelia's would add Driver A but they weren't cheap for Driver B so no real benefit there)

Buy an old banger, insure one of you on it with a policy that allows you to drive any car? The old banger doesn't have to be roadworthy even I think.

Ji, that sort of works, except that it's only third party with the driver other cars bit. With Driver A's usual vehicles that wouldn't have been an issue but he has finally got a decent van/camper thing and really wants it fully comp.
Good try though

Tried to do something along these lines, when i was between cars.

You cannot insure a vehicle that you do not own. You must be the named owned on the vehicle documents to insure it.

I was stuck between my car.... being scrapped when MOT expired, and trying to insure Mrs Ace's old car in my name, while Mrs Ace was the keeper.... but she had bought a new car and insured that, so her old car (to be my new car) was uninsured, but parked up off the road.

We are both named drivers on each others cars now, i could only only insure my new to me car when Mrs Ace sent in the paperwork to register it in my name.

You cannot insure a vehicle that you do not own. You must be the named owned on the vehicle documents to insure it.

dont forget there s a difference between an owner and a registered keeper
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q743.htm

That's odd, I thought you could insure a car for which you are not the registered keeper (or indeed owner,not necassarily the same thing) Done it at work a few times, we have a driver with a drink driving conviction, when we hire a van we have to get a separate policy from our own fleet insurer for him as the hire co won't take people with dd offenses on theirs.
i've never ticked the no box on comparison sites when it's asked if I'm the keeper though, does it say something like call us to discuss special terms or something if you do?
(EDIT) Beaten to it with keeper/owner. Another question, when driving in France you are supposed to have proof of ownership but as mentioned in a post above us Brits have no such document...

Vehicle log book ? prove's ownership, named owner on the log book.

I tried 2 years ago.

Not being the registered keeper/name on the log book, i could not insure a vehicle for private use (wifes old car still in her name.)

I had to scrap my old car earlier than planned and swap insurance after i became the new registered owner of Mrs Ace's old car.

I could not insure her old car until it was in my name,ergo my car, she could re-insure it for a limited period and have me as a named driver, that was the only way round it and not worth the cost or hassle.

Too many yoofs and villians finding loopholes have made things awkward and costly for us law abiding types 🙂

Vehicle log book ? prove's ownership, named owner on the log book.

No it doesnt. It records the registered keeper who has legal responsibility for the vehicle such as MOT and VED and it being correctly insured.

It doesnt denote ownership, nor does it make the registered keeper the only person who can insure a car.

It makes it harder to get insurance, but there are insurers who will do it, especially if the registered keeper is a named driver on the policy. For simplicity insurers ASSUME the registered keeper is the owner and that the owner is someone who has a financial stake int he vehicle and is less likely to drive in a way to prang it. That doesnt change the legal position though that anyone can insure a car and the registered keeper is not necc the owner.

Most policies have a clause in that states that it will not respond if another policy in force and that the other policy takes precedent.

In practice this is difficult because if both policies have such a clause then technically neither will respond and you won't get any money at all.

What tends to happen then if something is inadvertently dual insured (which is not permitted by law but does happen sometimes accidentally) is that each insurer pays a proportion depending on the premium paid etc.

Simple reason being, you insure the car and your daughter insures the same car.

An accident occurs and you decide 'Ooo, we have two policies, we can get both the policies to pay out'.

Insurance law dictates you can only be put back in a position you were before the loss and if you claimed twice you'd be up so this mechanism prevents that from happening.

Have you shopped around? I'm sure someone will give you a decent price for both of you on one policy.

Different insurers seem to target different types of driver/circumstances, makes sense really as they're managing the risk

Oh, and to insure something you must have an 'insurable interest'. That is you will lose out if something happens to an object.

So, I could not randomly insure someone else's house or car and hope that something happens to it and benefit accordingly.

Thanks guys, plenty of food for thought.
RE registered keepers, I'm sure a fairly significant portion of cars on the roads are owned by finance companies rather than the registered keeper (or shared between the two according to the HP agreement) and it's usually not the owner which insures them.
.
and what happened to the
Cheers,
Danny B? The consesus on that seemed to be ''why bother but no-one really minds if you do'' but now your post looks a little forlorn without it:-(
Cheer,
Andy H

Surely if one of you is fully comp the other only has to be 3rd Party? That would suffice in my eyes.

cant be done....i tried this years ago when i got given a car by my brother but he was still the registered keeper on the logbook...as soon as you mention you're not the registered keeper insurers dont want to know...simple fact - you cant insure something you dont own...however if you're married you can insure yourself on a car you dont own so long as the car is owned by your husband/wife...but still you cant both have separate policies on the same car...

simple fact - you cant insure something you dont own...

As mentioned a few posts above... you don't have to actually own something to be able to insure it, you only need to have insurable interest i.e. if damage were to occur you'd be in a worse position. That assumes you can find someone to carry the risk, but the principle is sound. If I was to lend a museum my Rembrant to display, then I'd expect them to insure it as they'd be liable were it nicked.

As for dual insurance, it happens all the time in property and commercial insurance and it would generally be the 'more specific' policy that would pay out.

With certain types of finance agreements on vehicles, legal title to the goods doesn't pass to the registered keeper until all payments have been made inc admin/option to purchase fees. Lenders register the vehicles they own with asset registration agencies (Experian/HPI). A lenders 'financial interest' in vehicles are sent to these agencies on a daily basis so that when a customer carries out a vehicle background check, the check shows the lender as the owner. Registered keeper is defined as 'the person currently in possession of the vehicle'.

Because the insurance industry can be open to fraud with regards to claims, they have established the [b]Claims and Underwriting Exchange[/b]. This is essentially a database for all claims activity from all insurance companies and can easily identify cases of fraud. Examples would be a policyholder covering one item with two insurance polocies and making two claims, or perhaps a pattern of similar claims by an individual or company that appear to be fraudulent.

In answer to your question - Yes (one policy per car)

simple fact - you cant insure something you dont own

not true - I have a car on a 3 year contract hire agreement.
I don't own it or any part of it (never will - just hand it back at end of the 3 years), I'm not the registered keeper on the log book (I don't have the log book, the hire company hold it and it's registered to them).

I do have to insure it however, appart from the legal requirement I'm contractually responsible for repairing/replacing it if I damage it

You insure the car, not the person, this is why your no claims bonus cannot be used on multiple policies.

When my son was learning to drive, I was able to take out a second supplementary policy with a second insurer that insured only HIS USE OF MY CAR whilst a learner.

I know it's not the same as the scenario the OP described but it demonstrates that you can have two policies covering one car. The content of the two policies must not overlap though.
i.e. my policy covered me to drive and the car itself when no-one driving, fully comp. It did not include him driving my car. His policy covered him & my car fully comp only whilst he was driving.

The same model might be available elsewhere.

You cannot insure a vehicle that you do not own.

We just have, in the last few days even.

I've always been a named driver on Mrs mW's car for the last 15 years. Due to medical issues she's no longer able to drive although she still owns the car. We've just taken out a new policy and despite not being the registered owner I am the only named driver on the policy.

You cannot insure a vehicle that you do not own. You must be the named owned on the vehicle documents to insure it.

You can. We insure hire cars and rented vehicles on our fleet policy, we don't own them.

You would also not own a lease car, but you could insure it.

We can only insure an item that we [b]either own or have financial interest in[/b]. This is known as [b]Insurable interest[/b]. Taking this concept further, insurance law dictates that we must either 'benefit from it' or we will 'suffer through losing it'.

This makes more sense when we compare it to items that are commonly insured. For example, we can only insure our own car because we have purchased it and we use it so we 'benefit from it'. We would obviously 'suffer through losing it' if it were stolen or written off. If it were somebody else's car, we could still be said to 'benefit from it' if we borrowed it, but in real terms the person that would 'suffer from losing it' would actually be the owner who purchased it.

More information on finance and lease structures can be found here http://www.fla.org.uk/home

You cannot insure a vehicle that you do not own.

Yes you can. Or how would you be able to get insurance on a car that you haven't actually bought yet?

I've no idea with regards to the OP's question but I would advise to shop around for a normal quote with driver A as the main driver and driver B named on the policy. I know that the Admiral group of companies offer a discount on the quote for the main driver as soon as a named driver is added to the policy, even when the named driver is a higher risk. It makes no sense to me but I've been using it to my advantage for the last 5 years... Here's an example - When I was 35 with no claims etc and 17 years ncb I bought a Mitsubishi Evo. Best quote was from Admiral at £850. I then got a re-quote and added the Wife as a named driver, Wife 29 and having no ncb and yet to pass her driving test. I expected a quote for many thousands but it actually reduced my quote by about £20... Like I said, it makes no sense from a risk perspective but worth taking advantage of if you can.

shoping around usually worth the time/effort.

on a sidenote..if you own and are registered keeper of 2 cars your NCB will only apply to 1 policy?

acehtn - Member

You cannot insure a vehicle that you do not own. You must be the named owned on the vehicle documents to insure it.

I am the policy holder for my OH's car, which she owns and is the registered keeper of.

That's one of the downsides to the way the legalised thieves operate in this country.
Having lived and worked in several other european countries - insurance here is a joke.
YOUR NCB is YOURS on YOU as a DRIVER - NOT the car you are insuring.
Therefore IF you insure 5 cars - YOU can only drive ONE of those cars at a time. Therefore your NCB should apply across ALL of the cars you insure.
Not so in this country - they will only allow ONE car to apply the NCB too.
In germany - the car is insured - not the driver.
In spain - the car is insured - not the driver.
See where this is going?
You the driver build up your NCB by being a low risk yet are penalised by the system in place in this country whereby the insurers only allow you to apply it to one vehicle.
You have to build it up on different vehicles too.
I have 14yrs in cars, 11yrs on bikes and 9yrs in vans yet I still can only apply it to one vehicle in each sector and after that I start at zero for the next vehicle.
Utter crock of sh*te!

Agree with you hammy, it's a mad system.It's me who hasn't crashed, not the car.
.
EckyThump, that is exactly what I'm trying to do. Basically the total cost of two policies we've found is loads less than both drivers on the same policy. Can you remember which insurer your son used?

Not being the registered keeper/name on the log book, i could not insure a vehicle for private use (wifes old car still in her name.)

no, you can't.

So I don't believe you are breaking the law insuring twice. (If so then please identify the law). Obviously in the event of a claim you can't claim double - and if it was something like theft which might be covered under both policies it could be messy. It may also cause some headaches on the MID but its not going to cancel both policies. It wont cancel either policy without informing you - and I can't believe duplicate policies on MID is a legitimate trigger to cancel a policy - can those who claim it will happen cite actual cases of this?

I take my cycling related info on here with a pinch of salt but when it comes to car advice. Just wow!

Try Pistonheads.

thanks for the info Hammy re NCB, I suppose if you have an incident in one it screws all you other NCB too!!? aggghhh fukem!