Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
holders and insurers?

Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
without any agreement or input from the named driver

If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
between the named driver and policy holder?

dg

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT), dg  wrote:

> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
> holders and insurers?
>
> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>
> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
> between the named driver and policy holder?

If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between the
named driver and the insurer.

What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a named
driver who is not the insured?

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:3ma7f4dtgv7l3o16o2ros5um7d9skur2mh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT), dg  
> wrote:
>
>> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
>> holders and insurers?
>>
>> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
>> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
>> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>>
>> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
>> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
>> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
>> between the named driver and policy holder?
>
> If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between the
> named driver and the insurer.
>
> What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a 
> named
> driver who is not the insured?
>
Accepting responsibility for an accident caused by the named driver?

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:37:41 +0100, "mert1639" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:3ma7f4dtgv7l3o16o2ros5um7d9skur2mh@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT), dg  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
>>> holders and insurers?
>>>
>>> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
>>> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
>>> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>>>
>>> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
>>> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
>>> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
>>> between the named driver and policy holder?
>>
>> If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between the
>> named driver and the insurer.
>>
>> What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a 
>> named
>> driver who is not the insured?
>>
> Accepting responsibility for an accident caused by the named driver? 

I can see how that could be detrimental to the holder/buyer of the policy
but not how it is detrimental to a named driver who is not the holder/buyer
of the policy.  This named driver will have no NCB to lose or premiums that
could be raised and the decision the insurer to compensate a third party
claim would nor require that the driver agreed with their decision or bind
the driver to accept liability for additional uninsured claims that might
be made by the third party.

Tony

On 13 Oct, 23:01, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:37:41 퍝, "mert1639" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
> >news:3ma7f4dtgv7l3o16o2ros5um7d9skur2mh@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT), dg 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
> >>> holders and insurers?
>
> >>> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
> >>> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
> >>> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>
> >>> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
> >>> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
> >>> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
> >>> between the named driver and policy holder?
>
> >> If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between the
> >> named driver and the insurer.
>
> >> What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a
> >> named
> >> driver who is not the insured?
>
> > Accepting responsibility for an accident caused by the named driver?
>
> I can see how that could be detrimental to the holder/buyer of the policy
> but not how it is detrimental to a named driver who is not the holder/buyer
> of the policy.  This named driver will have no NCB to lose or premiums that
> could be raised and the decision the insurer to compensate a third party
> claim would nor require that the driver agreed with their decision or bind
> the driver to accept liability for additional uninsured claims that might
> be made by the third party.
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, accepting responsibility for an accident is the issue.

Although there is no no-claims bonus to lose, if the named driver has
other car policies, then when renewing his own insurance, and the
standard question about previous accidents needs to be answered, then
surely if the named driver states that he did have a previous accident
where blame was accepted, then the quotes he gets will presumably be
much higher than if the accident was a "not at fault" one.

So where does the named driver stand contractually, if he requires the
insurer to deny liability and not just make a commercial decision to
settle at the named drivers detriment? He has not agreed that the
insurer can make decisions on his behalf.

dg

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:25:11 -0700 (PDT), dg  wrote:

> On 13 Oct, 23:01, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:37:41 +0100, "mert1639" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>>> news:3ma7f4dtgv7l3o16o2ros5um7d9skur2mh@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT), dg 
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
>>>>> holders and insurers?
>>
>>>>> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
>>>>> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
>>>>> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>>
>>>>> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
>>>>> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
>>>>> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
>>>>> between the named driver and policy holder?
>>
>>>> If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between the
>>>> named driver and the insurer.
>>
>>>> What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a
>>>> named
>>>> driver who is not the insured?
>>
>>> Accepting responsibility for an accident caused by the named driver?
>>
>> I can see how that could be detrimental to the holder/buyer of the policy
>> but not how it is detrimental to a named driver who is not the holder/buyer
>> of the policy.  This named driver will have no NCB to lose or premiums that
>> could be raised and the decision the insurer to compensate a third party
>> claim would nor require that the driver agreed with their decision or bind
>> the driver to accept liability for additional uninsured claims that might
>> be made by the third party.
>>
>> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, accepting responsibility for an accident is the issue.
>
> Although there is no no-claims bonus to lose, if the named driver has
> other car policies, then when renewing his own insurance, and the
> standard question about previous accidents needs to be answered, then
> surely if the named driver states that he did have a previous accident
> where blame was accepted, then the quotes he gets will presumably be
> much higher than if the accident was a "not at fault" one.
>
> So where does the named driver stand contractually, if he requires the
> insurer to deny liability and not just make a commercial decision to
> settle at the named drivers detriment? He has not agreed that the
> insurer can make decisions on his behalf.

I don't recall any standard question about blameworthy accidents; in terms
of driving history I only recall questions about accidents (so yes), claims
(so no), convictions and information on any applications for insurance that
were declined.

Also an insurer is not a court and they don't find or accept blame, they
just make business decisions on whether to pay or fight which is not the
same thing.  Their decision to pay a third party is not an admission of
blame and they have no authority to admit blame on your behalf and no need
or wish to anyway and that could be libelous.

Tony

> >>> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, policy
> >>> holders and insurers?
>
> >>> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
> >>> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
> >>> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>
> >>> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
> >>> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
> >>> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
> >>> between the named driver and policy holder?
>
> >> If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between 
> >> the
> >> named driver and the insurer.
>
> >> What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a
> >> named
> >> driver who is not the insured?
>
> > Accepting responsibility for an accident caused by the named driver?
>
> I can see how that could be detrimental to the holder/buyer of the policy
> but not how it is detrimental to a named driver who is not the 
> holder/buyer
> of the policy. This named driver will have no NCB to lose or premiums that
> could be raised and the decision the insurer to compensate a third party
> claim would nor require that the driver agreed with their decision or bind
> the driver to accept liability for additional uninsured claims that might
> be made by the third party.
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, accepting responsibility for an accident is the issue.

Although there is no no-claims bonus to lose, if the named driver has
other car policies, then when renewing his own insurance, and the
standard question about previous accidents needs to be answered, then
surely if the named driver states that he did have a previous accident
where blame was accepted, then the quotes he gets will presumably be
much higher than if the accident was a "not at fault" one.

So where does the named driver stand contractually, if he requires the
insurer to deny liability and not just make a commercial decision to
settle at the named drivers detriment? He has not agreed that the
insurer can make decisions on his behalf.

It is not relevant. The driver has a legal obligation to inform his own 
insurers about the accident in any case regardless of fault. Furthermore 
this must be done immediately and not be left until the renewal date.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:IYGdnRGZ66l5oGnVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> >>> Where does the contractual relationship lay with named drivers, 
>> >>> policy
>> >>> holders and insurers?
>>
>> >>> Does a named driver have any relationship at all with the insurer? In
>> >>> particular can an insurer make decisions and conduct a claim defence
>> >>> without any agreement or input from the named driver
>>
>> >>> If there was a dispute, say a decision is made to the detriment of a
>> >>> named driver, then does the named driver have sufficient contractual
>> >>> link to the insurer to raise a dispute, or would the dispute be
>> >>> between the named driver and policy holder?
>>
>> >> If the named driver is not the insured then I see no contract between 
>> >> the
>> >> named driver and the insurer.
>>
>> >> What decision of the insurer do you believe could be detrimental to a
>> >> named
>> >> driver who is not the insured?
>>
>> > Accepting responsibility for an accident caused by the named driver?
>>
>> I can see how that could be detrimental to the holder/buyer of the policy
>> but not how it is detrimental to a named driver who is not the 
>> holder/buyer
>> of the policy. This named driver will have no NCB to lose or premiums 
>> that
>> could be raised and the decision the insurer to compensate a third party
>> claim would nor require that the driver agreed with their decision or 
>> bind
>> the driver to accept liability for additional uninsured claims that might
>> be made by the third party.
>>
>> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, accepting responsibility for an accident is the issue.
>
> Although there is no no-claims bonus to lose, if the named driver has
> other car policies, then when renewing his own insurance, and the
> standard question about previous accidents needs to be answered, then
> surely if the named driver states that he did have a previous accident
> where blame was accepted, then the quotes he gets will presumably be
> much higher than if the accident was a "not at fault" one.
>
> So where does the named driver stand contractually, if he requires the
> insurer to deny liability and not just make a commercial decision to
> settle at the named drivers detriment? He has not agreed that the
> insurer can make decisions on his behalf.
>
> It is not relevant. The driver has a legal obligation to inform his own 
> insurers about the accident in any case regardless of fault. Furthermore 
> this must be done immediately and not be left until the renewal date.
>

As many insurance companies will now recognise the no claim status of named 
drivers, there is a no claim discount to lose.