Kanetix
Car Insurance Forum

I am 30 years old and live at my parent's home for the time being after moving back from another province. My question is, do I have to be placed on their car insurance, or am I automatically covered seeing as how I live there?

We referred your question to Sean Graham, Principle Broker at KTX Insurance Brokers for assistance and he let us know that since you hold a licence (doesn't matter if it is a G1, G2, full G licence, or even another province's licence) you must be included as a driver on their policy, and they on yours assuming you also have a vehicle.

All licensed drivers in the household, and anyone who frequently uses the vehicle's insured, should be named since all could have access (whether given permission or not) to the car(s).

Sean Graham, Principal Broker at KTX Insurance Brokers.

Neither Kanetix® nor the KanetixForum.ca is an insurance broker or agent. Although this information has been passed along to you from KTX Insurance Brokers through the Forum, we are not responsible for the opinions expressed by them. Insurance can be complicated. When reading these answers, keep in mind each person's situation is unique. Individual responses may vary depending on your insurer, geographic location, and specific circumstances. If you have a similar situation, always speak with your insurance provider, or a licensed insurance representative, for terms and conditions that may apply to you.

Sean

The 30-yr-old returning to his parents' province (and home) needs to
a- add himself to the parents' policy
b- add his parents to his policy

If he adds himself to the parents' policy, that policy increases;
if he add his parents to his policy, his policy (premium, price) increases.

How is that not double dipping? I can see one premium increasing, but the best answer would be to reduce the premiums down to one master package, cover the licenced people in that household, and kill the redundant policy/policies as all they do is create unneccessary expense, and, in case of claims, each policy will, upon learning upon the existence of the other, defer payment of claim to said other; while said other will defer back.

I mean excellent for $ but you're putting the Firm's interests before the Customers' interests.
You wonder why people are disgusted by insurance...whatever you are.

Do honest business; lie less. I swear it works wonders for earning respect for the industry.

Try it! :)

Hi,

First and foremost, Kanetix is an online quote comparison service for a variety of insurance and financial related products. As Kanetix is not an insurance company, agent or broker, Kanetix provides consumers the ability to compare quotes from a variety of insurance companies in hopes of finding a better rate and product suitable for their needs. With that said, I referred your question to Sean Graham, Principle Broker at KTX Insurance Brokers to respond to your question.

Hi,

To provide you with an accurate answer, I would have to look at the full details of your situation. Nevertheless, I agree the situation does seem unnecessary. You suggest that everyone be added to one policy and to get rid of the redundant extra policy. That may be possible depending on who is the registered owner of each vehicle. Regardless, you should all be insured with the same company, taking advantage of multi-vehicle and/or multi policy discounts to reduce your overall premiums.

It is in the interest of brokers to find you the lowest premiums possible. It is not in their interest to 'double dip.' It is very likely your options have not been explained to you properly by your current insurer. Your suggestion is a good one; you should follow through with it and seek the aid of a broker or agent. You can start out by obtaining quotes on Kanetix.ca to find a better rate and premium for your needs.

All the best,
Sean Graham, Principal Broker at KTX Insurance Brokers.

The OAF1 requires that the Named Insured declare "all licensed drivers in THE HOUSEHOLD: and also "All other licensed drivers in the household" at the time of policy inception. This question of "the household" has been addressed in several court decisions yet our industry continues to ignore the need to resolve the ambiguity and leave agents, brokers and insureds to make dangerous decisions on what is material to the risk with respect to disclosure. "THE HOUSEHOLD" is the key. If you are insuring a mother who lives with her children in their apartment and that apartment is leased to children exclusively and the mother comes and goes as she pleases as do her children, is "the household" as far as the applicant mother is concerned truly inclusive of the children. I say no,given the courts various analogies on this. Further for being ambiguous, an insurer will lose this battle in court if they don't, further to the recent Court of Appeal decision in New Brunswick,define materiality.

I agree with Brij that "Household" is an ambiguous term and leaves room for all kinds of bad things to happen to consumers, insurers, brokers, everyone involved. Until that ambiguity is resolved I always caution clients to include everyone in the home on their policy. This is not to collect more premium, as the gentleman above suggested, but to ensure that everyone who needs coverage is covered when a claim arises. In fact, including a family member on your policy often carries no extra cost at all but this will depend on the age, driving record, etc. of the individual being added. When in doubt, add everyone in the "household" or anyone who would potentially drive the vehicle especially if they don't have their own insurance policy and especially if there is no additional cost. This is why it is important to discuss these things thoroughly with a broker or agent to make sure the customer's interests are always looked after.

Sean Graham, Principal Broker at KTX Insurance Brokers