Tesla Model 3 Performance Insurance

I just put through my order for a model 3 and was wondering where the cheapest insurance is for NSW and can cover me under my parents name. I’ve checked around and it’ll be around 5K for my own name being 22.

Comments

  • +12 votes

    Do you work for control?

  • What's $5k when you're dropping $110k or so on the car?

      • Pretty reasonable for a young driver in a high performance car. I'm sure many have had to pay much higher percentages, I know I did when I had a motorbike.

        • Yup all my bikes were worth less than $15k (i never bought new) and insurance was usually upwards of $2k. My cheapest one (worth around $6k) had insurance at $1.2k.
          Didnt really change once i got over 25yo either.

    • Yes, but he forgot to get that 5k on the loan, and he has no savings.

  • +29 votes

    Performance
    my own name being 22.

    Well there is your problem….

  • Maybe you should have thought of this before you put an order in for $60k car.

    It's going to be tough but you're going to have to check out of those insurance sites yourself.

  • If you bought it yourself, why would you be putting it in your parents name? I don't understand.

    • Age and insurance history. Being a 22 year old man i.e. most likely to hoon and cause an accident means $$$$ in insurers' eyes

      • Check with whatever insurer you go with that you're still covered if it's under their name. I know in the past I've had insurers that won't cover unlisted drivers under the age of 25.

      • Age and insurance history.

        Mhmm. I'm in my 30s and have a good driving record. With myself as primary driver, adding parents as listed drivers (they do actually drive it occasionally) dropped the premium. Even with them having a claim themselves within the report-able period (and me not).

    • Because insurance fraud is better than paying full price apparently.

      • Depends. Some insurers let anyone drive the car without nominating a main driver, and this is a very common practice around the country.

        • The excess though no doubt would reflect the age of the driver at the time of accident.

        • +1 vote

          just make sure there isnt an age based excess and he should be fine

        • I've never come across an insurer that doesn't ask for the main driver, and anyone else who will regularly drive the car. Pretty standard question. If you can point out any that don't ask for details on a primary driver, I'd like to hear them.

          • @robberbutton: Young adults have been putting insurance in their parents names to save money for as long as I can remember, I am sure if they were really concerned about this 'fraud' they would have done something about it many many years ago.

            When I was 18, nearly 19, I was working FT and spent about $15-16k on a second hand car, nothing special, think like a Mazda 3.

            Insurance company wanted over $5k to insure an 18 year old male in a reasonably sensible car, a third of the cars value?? Ridiculous.

            Put it in my dad's name and listed me as a secondary driver and it was closer to $3K. It attracted a higher excess if I was involved in an accident but better than initial premium they were originally asking for

            • @Nebargains: Just because people have been doing something a long time doesn't make it right.

              • @robberbutton: What Nebargains says is correct and legal. The ethics of it don't come into question.

                I've owned 20+ cars over the past 41 years. The ones that were insured with AAMI, GIO, Mercantile Mutual & NRMA only had me on the papers. There was no penalty for my partner, sister, parents etc to drive without being nominated.

                I'm on a "budget" policy these days and she does have to be nominated or the excess is $500 more.

                If you want cover for any random <25 driver these days then you will pay extra

            • @Nebargains: I spent $12k on my first car, I found that putting it under my parents name didn't make a difference to insurance cost at all (around 2k). I felt uncomfortable with doing it anyways and the excess was crazy, like $800 base with $1000 under 21 and another $1000 under 2 years experience or something. In the end, I just decided to go third party, $500 a year with aami and $600 excess. 4 years in and I've saved probably around $4-$6k. In hindsight, had I considered insurance before hand I probably would've gone with something I'd be more comfortable writing off.

              • @bkhm: @bkhm

                The biggest issue is that when you get to a point where you wish to insure in your own name, you don't have a No Claim Bonus.

                • @brad1-8tsi: I always here this but whenever buying insurance I see that they don't generally ask about that. Also, it is under my own name but third party.

                  • @bkhm: I meant to reply to NEbargains /facepalm.

                    My ex had to jump through hoops in 2016. She had company cars for 20 years and got retrenched. Bought herself a new Kia Cerato and they wouldn't give her an NCB. She had to get a statutory declaration from her previous employer stating that she hadn't had any accidents in the past x (3?) years and she had to make one as well. Even then she didn't get the full 60%.

                    • @brad1-8tsi: I still don't get any NCB with my car, I actually thought my insurance premiums would go down as I rack up more years but that hasn't been the case. The cheapest it has been was my first year on my red P's.

                      edit: just found out it doesn't apply to third party. I don't quite understand. I thought the idea of NCB is that it shows you're less likely to have an accident. What difference does this make whether it's third party of comprehensive?

          • @robberbutton: NRMA asks for the owner. Not the primary driver.

            • @Nuggets: Looking at their quote online now:

              Step 3 of 3 : Driver details

              • @robberbutton: Does it say primary driver?

                edit: I'm on the form now. It says Driver details at the top sure. But then it says:

                "Tell us a little more about yourself…"

                "My details"

                You can presume that the owner of the vehicle would be filling out this form as they are insuring their car.

                Unlike other insurance companies where it explicitly states "provide the details of the primary driver", this form clearly does not.

                It then further down says, "we cover anyone who drives your car!" one again supporting the fact that the owner is filling this out, not the primary driver. Note that in this section, you can choose to list additional owners / drivers, but do not have to.

                You would certainly need to answer truthfully the final two questions that ask about "any owner or driver" regardless of whether you are listing them on the policy or not.

          • @robberbutton: Many insurers will not require all drivers to be listed. Of course, they will attract various additional excesses.

            The ones that we use only apply additional excess for under 25 drivers and those licenced less than 2 years on Australia, and the excesses are very, very reasonable compared with the likes of direct insurers.

            Then there's specialised agencies that will insure under the parents and allow unlisted drivers to drive 2% of the time. Although they exclude anyone under 30 so that's a moot point.

            The fact is that a 22 year old is always going to find it difficult / expensive to insure a Tesla and I would urge OP to read the PDS thoroughly no matter which insurer they choose because chances are there'll be an exclusion rendering them uninsured in the event of a claim.

      • Fraud implies that the driver is doing something unlawful. Driving a vehicle that is owned by someone else isn’t.

        • Making a false declaration in an insurance contract is fraud. I'm not assuming that OP is or is not intending to commit fraud, but it is a possibility.

          Insurers commonly ask for the name and age of regular drivers of the vehicle and adjust the policy accordingly. Since the Tesla can do 0-100 in 3.5 seconds I think they will be much stricter in their conditions compared to the average car.

          • @trongy: NRMA will insure anyone. He can buy the car, register in his name and insure under parents name. You are supposed to have a financial interest in the vehicle if you insure under your name, but that could be as simple as lending or gifting some money to help purchase it, which could have occured at any time in his 22 years. This is acceptable and common practice. Higher excess applies in the event of accident for some age groups, but at 22 maybe not.

        • Pay less money by incorrectly stating the primary users of the vehicle, or leaving themselves off completely - obtaining financial benefit by deception. Nothing in the OP suggests the vehicle would be owned by anyone but themselves, rather lying to insurance suggesting a safer category of driver is the regular driver.

          Edit: I get it - people don't like paying money to insurance companies. No-one does. But to suggest going the old "this is my grandmother's car, she only drives it to church on Sunday's" route is anything but disingenuous at best, illegal at worst, is kidding themselves.

          • @robberbutton: The police arent interested in matters like these. besides, what financial benefit have you recieved exactly? by taking out a policy youve only paid money, not recieved it

            • @tcme: The Honda I inherited and let my girls drive is registered in my name and my address.

              It's "garaged" at their mothers house and between the three of them it was insured comprehensively until they decided that TPPD was a better option. It was quite legal although a bit of faffing about to organise. I drive the car about 6 times a year - max.

            • @tcme: When you claim, do you receive money? Then it's exactly as rubberbutton (see what I did there? he he) said.

              There have been many claims refused on this basis as well as people charged with fraud, since you have a Legal Duty of Disclosure that you agree to when you take out the policy.

              You may not hear about it on the news, but I see it in the trades and have personally testified in court.

              Take a 22 year old driver, give them a car that does 0-100 in 2.9 seconds, add a McLaren that they hit and wrote off after losing control, finish it off by lying in your duty of disclosure and find yourself holding a bill for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars when your claim is denied.

              • @imurgod: But it won't be denied. The law says someone does not have to have an insurable interest to insure a car, and NRMA say they will insure anyone who will drive the car and you don't need to disclose who to them. So why would it?

                • @tcme: It all depends on the PDS requirements and duty of disclosure. Ever heard of "fine print"? NRMA are notorious for it and using it to deny claims.

                  Then, of course, those people will say how insurers don't pay.

                  There's always 3 sides to a story.

                  • @imurgod: The law overrides PDS. And the fine print explicitly states it covers all drivers.

                    • @tcme: The PDS is a contract. I don't think you understand how contract law or common law works.

                      If the PDS says anyone can drive, then anyone can drive. But lying in your duty of disclosure will provides grounds for the insurer to argue a denial or reduction of a claim.

                      FWIW the policyholder needs to have an insurable interest in the vehicle.. not own it… but have an insurable interest.
                      e.g. My trust owns my car, but I am a director of the business so I have an insurable interest in it.

                      I couldn't insure your car.

                      • @imurgod: I am a lawyer, so don't tell me I don't understand contract/common law.

                        It's also funny how the law explicitly states you do not need to have an insurable interest: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ica198...

                        So stop talking about things you know nothing about, clown.

                        • @tcme: Sure you are, that's why you have no clue how it works and didn't bring up contract law or common law on the first place.

                          Relax, keyboard warrior, you're not fooling anyone into thinking you can even spell your name,let alone understand a policy wording.

                          • @imurgod: lol who doesn't know insurance is a contract? You're just stupid, funny how you have nothing to say about the law I linked. Back in your hole, goose.

                            • @tcme: You didn't know that or you wouldn't have made misinformed comments.

                              Also because what you broght up is irrelevant and has no bearing in this situation.

                              You've resorted to name calling because you're out of your depth and that's OK.

                              Since you're a lawyer can you please link any precedence cases backing you up?

                              The fact remains that I'm right and you're wrong.

                              • @imurgod: I linked statue, that's sufficient goose.

                                • @tcme: Statues have nothing to do with law or insurance, they are art.

                                  As a lawyer, you'd easily find a precedence unless, of course, you're a liar.

                                  Maybe I'll take out a policy on all my clients high end cars. I have no insurable interest, but hey, they smash and I get paid. That sounds totally lawful and legitimate… Or better still, commercial property, jewellery, shipments… Why not?

                                  This isn't going well for you, is it?

                                  Maybe you should've gotten an education after all.

  • +2 votes

    I'll insure it for you. Send cash and I'll warranty and insure for whatever.

  • We cannot afford to settle

    Couldn't afford a property 3 months ago (and potentially lost $100k deposit), so bought a $100k car instead?

    • Maybe he wants home and contents insurance as he's planning to live out of his new home car

      • This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen on this site, so far.

        • +23 votes

          At least he's getting insurance.

          Wait no he hasn't got insurance yet. OK let's wait for next post

        • Sheesh,

          Reminds me of my neighbour. Was $30k behind in strata payments, including ~8k in legal/recovery costs.

          Tenants just moved out, they’ve started a $60k Reno on the apartment and turn up every day in worthier a $90k merc or a $50k golf…

          I think certain people are far more concerned with image than financial sensibility.