I was rather surprised to see that one of the options for Marital Status - apprently throughout the site - is "Common-Law/Partner".

It is a matter of fact that Common Law marriage was abolished in England & Wales in 1753 (it's a bit different in Scotland , but suffice to say that the nearest thing they had to it was mostly abolished c. 1940 and completely abolished some 2-3 years ago - and was never called "Common-Law Marriage").

Is there any reason for this curious and - dare I say ? - potentially seriously misleading use of an archaic term ? Unless , of course , you plan to offer brougham insurance , or cover for the sons of gentlefolk who are doing the Grand Tour .

Your comments welcomed

ROFL!!!

This has to be the most anal and ridiculous question to-date. Certainly not written by anyone from Earth or with a busy lifestyle!!!

It is a term that the majority of people understand the meaning; rather than 'marriage by habit and repute' - that's a bit of a tongue twist and long winded. Generally the insurance company will want to know if the person is single, married, divorced, widowed, partnered, separated, living with a partner or common-law partnered.

There are very valid reasons why they seek the correct category and the answer is included in the premium rating process. Living with a partner is very different from common-law, especially in meaning. One could be living with a partner but not be getting on and living under the same roof purely because they have no where else to go but common-law suggests that, although not married, they both share and share alike.

It really is irrelevant that it was abolished in 1753. The insurance documents (and it's contents) are not 'law' but rather evidence to support that such a policy exists to protect the policyholder and to ensure that they satisfy laws (Road Traffic Act; Employers' Liability [Compulsory Insurance] Act 1969) or other conditions (Mortgager; appointment to employment). I don't get how it is 'seriously misleading'? Who is going to gain or lose from it? The Insured knows what is meant by the term and, if they don't, they can ask 'what's that?', and the Insurer will know how to interpret it.

Therefore unless you are referring to the court's decision on the divide of possessions after a non-marital end to a relationship then I really don't see the point in the question? Of course, you can't be talking about that either as you've posted on 'Ask the Expert - Insurance' forum.

I think you should write to all UK MP's (CC'ing the Prime Minister in), the Pope for his religious point of view and, only if you're absolutely sure you have enough time to do so, arrange to discuss this grave, terrible and dark matter with Queen Elizabeth II to ask if her predecessors told her how to approach this matter should it arrive hundreds of years later.

---

Coyote