Car insurance/named drivers question

[Buddy Bradley]

I can find plenty of references to not letting a named driver actually use the car more than the policy holder (which is apparently called "fronting" and is fraudulent).

But I can't find anything that says whether putting a named driver on your policy (to lower your premiums because they are a lower risk category) if they have no intention of ever actually driving the car is also considered fraud. It certainly feels like cheating, but I can't find any actual statement to that effect.

If my kid passes their test, buys a car, insures it but wants to reduce the premium by adding me as a named driver (despite the fact that I'll never actually use the car, so the risk of an accident is exactly the same) are insurance companies okay with that?

 

[Silas Loom]

Yes. It’s fine.

I’m on my daughter’s car insurance, as is my wife. I don’t even drive.

 

[Winot]

A friend was telling me at the weekend that an insurance company let her put her husband on the insurance for her manual car in order to lower the premium. He only has an automatic licence.

 

[Spymaster]

If my kid passes their test, buys a car, insures it but wants to reduce the premium by adding me as a named driver (despite the fact that I'll never actually use the car, so the risk of an accident is exactly the same) are insurance companies okay with that?

Yep. No probs. Take it round the block once a month if it bothers you.

 

[Spymaster]

A friend was telling me at the weekend that an insurance company let her put her husband on the insurance for her manual car in order to lower the premium. He only has an automatic licence.

That's surprising. Not having a valid licence usually invalidates insurance.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Yep. No probs. Take it round the block once a month if it bothers you.

It's not that it bothers me exactly, it just doesn't seem to make any sense for the insurer. If this 22-year-old has a certain risk profile, their policy having an extra name on it doesn't change that one iota. If anything it's just penalising young people who don't have a reliable adult in their life.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It's not that it bothers me exactly, it just doesn't seem to make any sense for the insurer. If this 22-year-old has a certain risk profile, their policy having an extra name on it doesn't change that one iota. If anything it's just penalising young people who don't have a reliable adult in their life.

Agreed.

But, it's pointless trying to make sense of how insurance companies come up with some of their risk assessments.

 

[Silas Loom]

It's not that it bothers me exactly, it just doesn't seem to make any sense for the insurer. If this 22-year-old has a certain risk profile, their policy having an extra name on it doesn't change that one iota. If anything it's just penalising young people who don't have a reliable adult in their life.

Insurance companies act on data, rather than prejudice. Presumably, young people with reliable adults in their lives are genuinely better risks.

 

[Elpenor]

My mum never drove my car while I had her insured on it when I was in my 20s.

 

[Dogsauce]

I used to get a cheaper premium on my car for being insured on other cars, I think the question was ‘do you have use of another car’ or something like that. The drummer in my last band had me insured on her Volvo estate so I could drive it back from gigs (because I didn’t drink), and another friend put me on hers for the occasional drive back from nights out too. So I guess it could also lower your premiums too if you let someone else insure you, even if you don’t drive the car?

 

[two sheds]

I find it strange that you can lower premiums by having a 'safe' driver on the policy. I'd have assumed that the insurance premium would be determined by the riskiest driver on the policy.