This issue came up in another forum and I have posted it here so some car insurance experts(are you there Mark?) can comment.
I have always thought that my comprehensive policy allowed me to drive any other car but that the cover would be Third Party only.
However I have just looked at my policy with MoreTh>n and it is quite specific. I quote:
"YOUR COVER WHILE DRIVING ANY OTHER CAR
This policy also covers you against claims for costs you may have to pay as a result of:
causing injury to or the death of anyone; or
the damage you cause to another person's property(we will pay up to £20,000,000 including legal costs for any claim)
You are covered while driving any other car only if the following apply:
Over 25, owners permission, not owned by you or partner and driven in UK. (I have shortened the wording)
You are not entitled to make a claim for the damage under any other policy of insurance."
Now the interesting thing is that nowhere can I see anything that states any damage I do to the other car I am driving is not covered i.e. Third party cover only.
In fact "the damage you cause to another person's property" clause appears to comprehensively cover any car I am driving.
On the face of it if someone had an uninsured Lamborghini I could drive it with full comprehensive cover on my insurance for a group 1 Fiesta.
Can't be that simple surely!
|
Can't be that simple surely!
>>
yes, because the car is already covered under the owner's policy.
double insurance and all that, if you see what i mean.
(akin to personal possesions covered by household policy excluded under travel policy )
hope that covers your question.
|
If you do a search this has been covered before by Mark and others.
You will find that if driving the Lambo on Fiesta Insurance then that will only cover third part risks and not comprehensive for the Lambo. The reasoning is pretty well apparent innit?
dvd
|
If you do a search this has been covered before by Mark and others. You will find that if driving the Lambo on Fiesta Insurance then that will only cover third part risks and not comprehensive for the Lambo. The reasoning is pretty well apparent innit?
DVD,
Yes I have seen the previous threads on this and, as I said in my first post, my understanding was exactly as you state - Lambo only covered 3rd Party.
However going through my policy there is nothing at all that states that is the case. In fact I can read it no other way than the Lambo is covered comprehensively.
I agree absolutely it would be a nonsense to let a 25 year old with a Fiesta policy drive a Lambo and be comprehensively covered. What I am looking for is something that confirms you are correct.
|
|
|
|
>> Can't be that simple surely! >> yes, because the car is already covered under the owner's policy. double insurance and all that, if you see what i mean. (akin to personal possesions covered by household policy excluded under travel policy ) hope that covers your question.
Dalglish,
Sorry doesn't answer my question - you haven't read the exam question properly!!.
If you look at what I wrote you will see that I said drive the other car when it had NO insurance at all.(The insurance could have lapsed but the RFL still be valid.)
Or come to that if the other car had third party insurance, it would appear that when it is driven by myself it is comprehensively insured.
I am aware people like HJ can have traders policies which allow them to drive any car; but mine is a standard comprehensive policy.
|
Over 25, owners permission, not owned by you or partner and driven in UK
>>
you refer to driving with owner's permission.
it is the duty of owner to make sure his car has adequate legal cover, and any other extra cover he may want, before allowing you to drive his car.
not your or your insurer's responsibility.
|
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
1988 c. 52 - continued
143.?(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act?
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
|
also,
definition of comprehensive:
In car insurance, coverage which pays to repair or replace the policy owner's vehicle and personal property inside of it if it was damaged or lost due to other agents, such as fire, theft, flood, or vandalism
and for examples of no misunderstandings in a policy, see
www.theaa.com/services/insuranceandfinance/motor_p...l
where terms such as
Insured Car
The motor vehicle with the vehicle registration number described in Section 1 of the current Certificate of Motor Insurance.
make it clear which car is covered by the comprehensive insurance.
|
If you look a little further down in the exclusion section (next page in my PDF) it says
This policy does not provide cover for the following.
4 Loss or damage to your car, or any other motor car driven or towed by you.
|
as stated by martin123, the morethan policy is very clear on this;
www.morethan.com/document/pdf/motorpoli.pdf
section 1, part b,
....
WHAT IS NOT COVERED
(see also section 5 General Exceptions)
This policy does not provide cover for the following:
.....
4 Loss or damage to your car, or any other motor car driven or towed by you. See section
1 ? part A if your cover is Comprehensive or Third Party Fire and Theft.
5 Damage to any property which the person covered by section 1 ? part B owns or is
responsible for.
6 We will not be liable for any consequence of terrorism unless we have to meet the
requirements of any road traffic legislation.
|
Daglish,
I really don't want to get into an argument on this, but with respect I really think you are not addressing the question I asked.
Firstly your reference to the Road Traffic act. I really do not see the relevance of you quoting this section.
Obviously there is absolutely no question that you cannot use an uninsured car on the road, or allow anyone else to use your uninsured car.
My point is according to my policy wording the other car is insured under my policy and thus complies with the Act. You presumably would not dispute that someone with an 'all cars' traders insurance policy can legally drive a car on his insurance.
Your quote:
"5 Damage to any property which the person covered by section 1 - part B owns or is
responsible for."
I believe that simply means I cannot drive my Fiesta(I really don't have a Fiesta you understand) into another car that I own or my garden wall and claim for the damage to my other car or the garden wall on my Fiesta policy.
Martint123's has only included part of that paragraph in his quote. It goes on to refer to Sect 1 Part A which details what is not covered. There is nothing in that section that prevents me driving another car. You might also like to read the example in exception 7 which appears to re-enforce my case.
|
I really don't want to get into an argument
>>
nor do i, so why don't you ask morethan to clarify their englsih if your interpretation of it is diffferent to mine.
simple, problem solved.
|
|
|
I believe that simply means I cannot drive my Fiesta(I really don't have a Fiesta you understand) into another car that I own or my garden wall and claim for the damage to my other car or the garden wall on my Fiesta policy.
I don't see why not - those kinds of accidents must be fairly common?
I'm sure plenty of husbands and wives have driven into each other, while following each other, where the husband owns both cars. And garden walls must be forever being knocked down.
|
On a slightly different tack, my son used to have a TFT policy originally to help keep the premium to reasonable levels.
He surprised me that stating he could drive another vehicle with the driver's permission and the same Third Party cover you get with a comprehensive policy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
DOC on TFT is unusual, but not unknown. How old was he though? The 21 or 25 year limit seems to be universal.
|
Cardew
Settle this once and for all will you. Please speak to your Insurance Company, pose the same question and report what they say. No porkies mind you.
It is quiete possible for them to do so but it seems to go against the grain from what I have experienced.
dvd
|
Cardew Settle this once and for all will you. Please speak to your Insurance Company, pose the same question and report what they say. No porkies mind you. It is quiete possible for them to do so but it seems to go against the grain from what I have experienced. dvd
I have phoned MoreTh>n and, after going around their call centre I finally got hold of someone who appeared knowledgeable. I also phoned an Insurance Broker to discuss the issue.
Firstly, both were of the opinion that it is legal to drive a car(that is not insured in its own right) on the DOC extension of a policy. So you are not contravening the Road Traffic act.
Secondly both state that you are only covered TPFT when using this DOC extension; which is what everyone thought - including myself - before I raised the wording in my policy.
MoreTh>n admitted that the policy document was unclear. However they rely on another provision stating that damage to any property you own, or are responsible for, is not covered. Their contention is that you are 'responsible' for the other car when driving it, even if the owner is present in the car. So in this respect Dalglish's interpretation was absolutely correct.
Interestingly the Broker said this question has been raised many times and some companies have re-worded their polices to avoid any ambiguity. They expressly exclude damage to the car you are driving on the DOC and do not rely on terms such as "are responsible for" or in the AA link that Daglish gave "in the care of the person".
|
Interestingly the Broker said this question has been raised many times and some companies have re-worded their polices to avoid any ambiguity. They expressly exclude damage to the car you are driving on the DOC and do not rely on terms such as "are responsible for" or in the AA link that Daglish gave "in the care of the person".
Questions relating to DOC cover, and it's use (and abuse) seem to arise very frequently on various forums. I've seen several cases where people believed they were covered to DOC because they're named on someone else's policy!
Years ago a broker told me that its intention was to allow a driver to, for example, move another car that was blocking his in at a party. It was never intended to allow the insured to willy nilly drive other cars, which is what some people seem to do.
Does anyone know (for sure, please) why DOC cover ever came into being?
|
>>How old was he though?>>
He was just over 25 at the time. Three years later he successfully took his IAM advanced driver's test but discovered, much to his surprise, that it didn't make all that much difference to premiums.
Mileage covered annually plays a far larger role and he drives around 33 miles each way daily to earn a crust.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Anyone know of an insurance company who offer the DOC extension to under 25's?
|
|
|
|
|
from today's motley fool news:
uk.biz.yahoo.com/050926/35/ft02f.html
"Sure You're Insured To Drive Someone Else's Car?
By Jane Mack
If you insure your car through Norwich Union, Asda or the RAC , then watch out because the terms of your policy will change at the end of the year. You will no longer be insured to drive someone else's car.
At the moment, most comprehensive car insurance policies allow you to drive cars that you don't own as long as you have the owner's permission. Driving other cars (DOC) is designed for emergency use only and cover is limited to third party only. It can't be used abroad and usually it doesn't cover vans or lorries.
But insurers say policyholders are abusing the system and that it doesn't help police to catch the 5% of drivers who aren't insured at all. Norwich Union, Asda and the RAC plan to remove the benefit from its policies by the end of the year while others such as AXA , Cornhill Direct and Royal & SunAlliance are considering it.
...... "
|
|
|
