Lootman wrote:Indeed. If my kid does 10,000 miles a year then that is a lot. But if I am the "main driver" does it then becomes OK as long as I do 11,000 miles a year in the same car?
Or 10,001 !
Thanks to gvonge,Shelford,GrahamPlatt,gpadsa,Steffers0, for Donating to support the site
Lootman wrote:Indeed. If my kid does 10,000 miles a year then that is a lot. But if I am the "main driver" does it then becomes OK as long as I do 11,000 miles a year in the same car?
swill453 wrote:didds wrote:Onbe could say then that fronting is just a way to minimise "rent" on an allowance to drive. ANPR checks etc etc all pass cos the car is insured.
Its only potentially when a claim is made that it comes to light. Then the insurance doesn't pay out for 1st/2nd party claims presumably. And in the meantime the years spent fronting have in effect created a slush fund to cover that (yes I know nobody stashes that cash away literally in a slush fund but the overall effect is the same).
Not so fast. If the fronting "offence" is blatant, I'm sure they could claw back the 3rd party claim from you as well. If it's a £million McLaren you've wrecked that could be life-changing.
Lootman wrote:swill453 wrote:Not so fast. If the fronting "offence" is blatant, I'm sure they could claw back the 3rd party claim from you as well. If it's a £million McLaren you've wrecked that could be life-changing.
Is that true though? I would have thought that your insurer is obligated to pay out third party claims but could then try and reclaim that money from you if you had materially lied to them.
swill453 wrote:Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
Scott.
didds wrote:swill453 wrote:Not so fast. If the fronting "offence" is blatant, I'm sure they could claw back the 3rd party claim from you as well. If it's a £million McLaren you've wrecked that could be life-changing.
Scott.
thats fair enough Scott yes. Mind you the average person doesnt HAVE £million to be clawed back from,
9873210 wrote: Garnishing, say, 10% of your earnings, any inheritances, any eventual estate, perhaps the rolex that you ill-advisedly wore to the debtors exam . .
9873210 wrote:pour encourager les autres.
didds wrote:none of which helps me understand who is the main driver of my wife's and my main vehicles. which we are not fronting. but still have declared a "main driver" for.
swill453 wrote:didds wrote:none of which helps me understand who is the main driver of my wife's and my main vehicles. which we are not fronting. but still have declared a "main driver" for.
What does your insurance company say? Mine (LV) says the main driver is the one that drives it "most often", as in number of times, not necessarily highest mileage.
Maybe keep a log for a month or something, then you'd have some evidence in the event of a question.
didds wrote:that would still change month by month, or week by week. Its still no better (though I appreciate your attempt Scott)
9873210 wrote:didds wrote:that would still change month by month, or week by week. Its still no better (though I appreciate your attempt Scott)
Insurance is on the basis of utmost good faith. In this case I would write a letter with the actual state of affairs and send it to the insurance companies' agent. In the modern age of procrustean multiple-choice websites without "none-of-the-above", free form text or any actual agent the letter goes to the CEO of the company. Keep a copy for your files.
Lootman wrote:9873210 wrote:Insurance is on the basis of utmost good faith. In this case I would write a letter with the actual state of affairs and send it to the insurance companies' agent. In the modern age of procrustean multiple-choice websites without "none-of-the-above", free form text or any actual agent the letter goes to the CEO of the company. Keep a copy for your files.
My instinct is always to volunteer the minimum amount of information that I have to, to avoid over-committing and painting myself into a corner.
That way I have the flexibility to present a number of different scenarios in the future, depending on what actually happens.
9873210 wrote:Lootman wrote:My instinct is always to volunteer the minimum amount of information that I have to, to avoid over-committing and painting myself into a corner.
That way I have the flexibility to present a number of different scenarios in the future, depending on what actually happens.
Except you ticked a box that said who was the principal driver, and another box or two that said that you fully understood every box you ticked and answered truthfully. The deniability seems a little implausible.
Lootman wrote:9873210 wrote:Except you ticked a box that said who was the principal driver, and another box or two that said that you fully understood every box you ticked and answered truthfully. The deniability seems a little implausible.
Sure, but as didds noted it may be hard or impossible for anyone to prove I was not the "main" driver (whatever that means). So I was expressing doubt about the wisdom of including a letter offering more info than I was being asked for. And how that may later constrain how I want to respond to a specific incident.
Years ago I was coached by a trial specialist on how to give testimony as a witness in court. Some of the principles I learned back then have stuck with me. One was: "Answer only what the question asks for. Do not volunteer anything beyond that". An example was: "Do you know what time it is?" If you do the best answer is "Yes".
I have heard similar advice for dealing with criminal issues, tax issues and so on. There is a reason why lawyers often recommend silence in some situations. If a dispute goes to court I may regret something I said earlier that I did not need to say and cannot now credibly un-say.
9873210 wrote:Lootman wrote:Sure, but as didds noted it may be hard or impossible for anyone to prove I was not the "main" driver (whatever that means). So I was expressing doubt about the wisdom of including a letter offering more info than I was being asked for. And how that may later constrain how I want to respond to a specific incident.
Years ago I was coached by a trial specialist on how to give testimony as a witness in court. Some of the principles I learned back then have stuck with me. One was: "Answer only what the question asks for. Do not volunteer anything beyond that". An example was: "Do you know what time it is?" If you do the best answer is "Yes".
I have heard similar advice for dealing with criminal issues, tax issues and so on. There is a reason why lawyers often recommend silence in some situations. If a dispute goes to court I may regret something I said earlier that I did not need to say and cannot now credibly un-say.
There is before and after. Before you get to decide what is to your advantage, do it, and document it. Your actions create the facts and the evidence. After it is too late. This is why lawyers recommend putting things in writing and having them dated and sometimes witnessed before the excrement hits the ventilator.
The advice lawyers give changes radically once a suit is filed.
One idea is to keep a second car but make it a very cheap one, hardly used, and maintain just third party cover on it.
Return to “Cars, Driving, Motorbikes or any Transport”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests