hypothetical situation... a man with a motor home decides to buy a 125 to carry on the back of his camper....he buys it, registers it in his name... and puts himself as main rider.... his daughter then says would i be allowed to have a go at biking using the bike ... no problem says dad and puts her as a named rider ... turns out she does like it and rides it as much as the dad .... IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL FRONTING?? ... exactly what is illegal.... so who goes to prison....the dad or the daughter
You (the hypothetical dad) altered the information you gave to the insurer.
Think about your hypothetical example in sequence.
1. The man owns a camper van. He buys a 125 cc bike to tow behind it and ride about on. He might have even worked out that it wouldn't be everyday use, so he might have declared a limited anticipated annual mileage to reduce his premium further. Either way, he's told the truth to his insurer that he is the owner of the vehicle and that he's the only rider.
2. After a few trips away in the camper van, his (we assume young or novice) daughter badgers dad into letting her have a go on the 125. Knowing that she is uninsured, the man calls his insurer, telling them her details (young, inexperienced etc etc) but that he'll remain the main rider, with his daughter as a named rider for occasional use. Up to this point, neither he - nor his insurer - know that she'll take to riding the motorcycle, so they all genuinely believe she'll only be riding it very occaisionaly, whilst dad remains as the main rider. The additional premium to include the daughter is calculated and then reduced to allow for the fact that she'll only be riding it occasionally and then by pro-rata for the number of days until the policy expires.
3. This happy set of truthful circumstances continues for a while and everything is fine.
4. Following her brief forays out on the bike, the daughter discovers that she quite likes it. She points out to dad that the bike doesn't get used unless they go away in the camper and wouldn't it be a good idea if she used it every day to go to school and at weekends / in school holidays to see her friends? After a bit of badgering, dad says "Yes". Bingo... The usage of the bike has now changed fundamentally, though the ownership of the bike has remained with dad.
The main regular user of the bike has clearly switched, from dad when he goes away in his camper van and the young daughter riding it occasionally, to the inexperienced daughter now using it as a regular form of transport on an all but daily basis. The risk factor has increased. The insurer isn't Mystic Meg, so they cannot know of the change of usuage. They rely on the dad to tell them and he has an obligation in law to do so.
Let's now roll the clock forwards to renewal. In the renewal process the expiring insurer asks the policy holder (dad) a very simple question: "Are all the details the same?". If he has not told the insurer of the very clear and obvious change of usuage and that the regular driver is now his daughter and still doesn't tell them he has, in a word, lied.
Let's say that dad decides to ask a new insurer for a quote. Dad now knows that he rides the 125 occasionally, when he goes away in his camper van AND he knows that his young daughter rides it every day for school and to see her mates, he though retains ownership of the vehicle. Under no stretch of imagination is he (the experienced, dad) the main user of the vehicle, it's her... the inexperienced young daughter using it every day. The risk exposure to the insurer is increased. If dad now knowingly lies at this point, using his age, experience to 'Front' (in other words, hide) the inexperienced and much younger daughter's regular usuage and thereby pay a much reduced annual premium, it's fraud. The laws (of which there are several) are very clear on this point.
The chances of being caught? Very low, not least as it may well require a claim (probably by a third party) to prompt the insurer to question what they had been told. The insurer would probably still pay the injured third party's claim, just as you, if you were the injured fellow suffering in your hodpital bed having been hit by the schoolgirl when she stuffed the 125 into your legs, smashing them both laying you off work for 16 weeks, your income reduced to zero and your holidays cancelled, trusted they would .... the same law protects you, the injured party - but the insurer would very well void the rest of the policy policy, refusing quite rightly to meet any expenses incurred by the daughter or her father, the damage to the 125 and, if they felt strongly enough, would have the right to prosecute the father and / or the daughter for fraud. But, even then, the insurer would still need to do so according to law, so they'd need to prove the fraud, so - ironically perhaps - the same law would protect the dad and the daughter, from the big insurer. Trust me, dad and daughter will run and hide behind every law they can find should the dreadful day ever happen.
People will always gamble to save money; many of them will lie to their insurer or employ 'Dirty tricks' to reduce their costs. It's up to the individual whether they want to or not. Only you, the proposer seeking insurance (which is a legal contract of indemnity, defined in law) will know if you have told the truth or not.
You'll know whether your son really will be the main rider of the Van Van, as he gains experience or whether he'll only use it very occaisionally, the rest of the time it sitting in the garage depreciating quietly and / or if you intend to use it regularly yourself instead. You don't need to be Mystic Meg. You and only you, have the choice whether to lie or mislead and 'Front' on behalf of your son or not. If in doubt, tell the truth. Nobody can hang you for it, trust me.
