I know the usual old chestnut:
My insurance says I can driver a car belonging to someone else (TP only cover), but what this really means is that car ALSO has to have insurance.
However, I have just noticed that my new Tesco insurance, while saying the usual bit about driving another car not owned or hired etc, explains in the policy that this only applies if ?There is no other insurance in force?.
This would appear to be saying that I can drive another uninsured car, but not an insured one. Does it really mean that?
If so, it would mean that I could drive another insured car only if I were entitled to on that car?s policy.
Also I could go and buy and drive home (via a pre-booked MOT if not taxed) an uninsured car, provided legal ownership was transferred only at the end of the journey.
(That is quite a likely scenario ? I recently bought a friend?s car for spares, but only transferred ownership at the end of the month so that he could recover the unexpired tax)
Can any insurance expert explain ?
|
I'm not an insurance expert, but would expect this to mean that you are covered providing YOU are not covered already by another policy, eg you cannot claim on your insurance under tp cover when you are a named driver on your wife's car.
Someone will be along who really knows what they are talking about soon
Regards
Jonathan
|
|
|
this only applies if ?There is no other insurance in force?.
It means that if the other car is insured for anyone to drive, or you are a named driver on that car for instance, then you claim on that insurance policy and not your own if you were to have a prang.
|
But if the other car were not insured, would I be covered or not?
The policy wording appears to be saying I would be covered ONLY if there were no other cover in place.
|
|
Which is true. If you're driving a car owned by your wife and you're not a named driver, at the time of driving, there is no other cover in place.
|
To add to that, Cliff, the other car MUST be insured, but not with you as a named driver.
As an example, I was covered by my policy to drive a relative's car, UNTIL his own insurance on the car expired. I then had to insure the car in my name.
|
|
|
The primary insurance takes precedence.
So, if, for example, your Father's car was insured for your Father and you, then you would have no cover under your own insurance, because your Father's would take precedence.
If, on the other hand, your Father's car was him only, then you would have cover under your DOC extension since that was the primary cover available.
None of this has any bearing on whether or not another car must be insured in its own right for you to use your DOC extension. That is an entirely separate matter.
|
Seems the question can only be answered by the individuals Insurance Company.
Mine is Royal Sun Alliance and putting the toothcomb through the Policy document it states that I can drive other cars not owned by me but the cover is restricted to third party. Whilst this limited form of cover is useful in an emergency if I was to do it on a regular basis then I should be named on their Insurance policy.
Again on the certificate it only states that I can drive a vehicle not owned by me etc. There is no proviso anywhere in the Policy or certificate stipulating that the other vehicle must be insured.
From this I consider that I can on a very irregular basis jump into an uninsured vehicle owned bysomeone else (with his permission) and be covered by my Insurance (3rd party).
In the old days anyone presenting me on a spot check /accident etc with a certificate containing the above additional cover I accepted it as did other officers without asking to see a current Insurance for that vehicle.
Doesn't herlp does it?
DVD
|
I asked this question of my insurers 2 months ago. I needed transport as my car was off the road and my brother had a taxed and MOT'd Golf in his garage where he had transferred his insurrance to another car. I asked if I could drive it Third Party only and the answer from my insurers was (surprisingly) yes. Although it was stated that the car could not be left unattended on a public road as it would be uninsured...
I did drive the car on a journey like this but remain unconvinced - should have got it in writing!
|
|
|
From this I consider that I can on a very irregular basis jump into an uninsured vehicle owned bysomeone else (with his permission) and be covered by my Insurance (3rd party).
That's how I would read it. Where did this idea come from that the car in question has to also be insured under another policy? Surely it is the driver that is insured to drive the car in question, not the car that is insured to be driven?
|
That's how I would read it. Where did this idea come from that the car in question has to also be insured under another policy? Surely it is the driver that is insured to drive the car
>>in question, not the car that is insured to be driven?
It's an oft-quoted urban myth that the car has to be separately insured. In many policies over the years, I have never seen this condition. Call centre staff often perpetuate the myth but who believes what they tell you?
|
|
Any myths, urban or otherwise, can be ignored by listening to our in-house insurance expert, M(RBLS).
|
As was discussed a few days ago, amazing how simpler life is in those parts of the globe where the vehicle, not the driver, is insured.
|
"It's an oft-quoted urban myth that the car has to be separately insured. In many policies over the years, I have never seen this condition. Call centre staff often perpetuate the myth but who believes what they tell you?"
But a parked car has to be insured, even if there is no one allowed to drive it, surely? I can't just let my insurance lapse and leave the car on the road.
|
But a parked car has to be insured, even if there is no one allowed to drive it, surely?
>>I can't just let my insurance lapse and leave the car on the road.
You may be right. It depends on the definition of 'driving'. Normally, this would include any claims resulting from negligent parking e.g. not securing the handbrake and the car rolling away. You could argue that the person parking a car remains in charge of it. The only way to answer this is to ask the insurance co. and get it in writing if they say it's OK.
Re your original post, I think legal ownership transfers when you hand the money over. Filling in the V5 later has nothing to do with legal ownership AFAIK.
|
|
|
So it would appear that my(notional) 17 year old son, with his group 1 Fiesta insurance policy, is covered to drive my(also notional) uninsured group 20 Ferrari!
|
|
Unlikely - it is usually only added to your insurance policy if you have so many years NCB, and are over a certain age (I think 25, but stand to be corrected).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A vehicle is not insured.
The driver is insured in respect of liabilities to other road users and the public via public liability insurance.
If someone is insured to drive vehicles not owned by or leased to him that is what is insured. ie "to drive vehicles...."
Perfectly legal to drive an otherwise uninsured vehicle subject to what I wrote.
If there's an accident this insured will pay for 3rd party damage but not receive payment for himself.
So yes, lad can drive Ferrari, but prang it and no compo for him, or you, only for 3rd party.
|
"A vehicle is not insured."
This surely can't be true. If I let my insurance lapse and go away on holiday leaving the car parked in the road, I cannot conceivably be still in charge of the car. Doesn't a vehicle on the public highway have to have insurance?
OK, there might be a complete stranger living 200 miles away whose insurance covers him to drive any car, including mine if he asked me, - but that wouln't make mine legal? This is crazy - of course a car has to be insured.
My original point, sorry to labour it, was that whereas most policies allow the policy holder to drive another car, implication as long as that car is itself insured, my policy only allows me to drive another car if it is NOT insured.
I take Mark's point that where 2 insurances cover a single incident, the primary one takes precedence, but that doesn't really exolain the unusual wording on my policy.
Still puzzled,
Cliff Pope
|
The car is not insured as I understand it. Insurance covers the 'driver' for successful claims against him/her which have occurred due to his negligence. You can sue a person for damage/injury caused by their negligence but you can't sue a car.
Re your original point, there is no such thing as a 'primary' policy as far as I know. If a risk is covered by 2 or more insurances, then each ins co. pays out pro-rata. But Tesco i.e. Direct Line don't want to pay out if there is another policy covering the driver. So, they include the get-out clause which applies when you are driving another car under the 'other car' clause. This clause also applies when you are driving your own car i.e. the car on which the policy was taken out. They won't pay out if there is other insurance.
If the other insurance has a similar clause, then each policy would have to pay out pro-rata.
So, to sum up, whatever car you are driving, you are covered unless you are covered by another policy (provided, of course, that you are not the owner if driving under the 'any car' cover).
|
|
|
>>my policy only allows me to drive another car if it is NOT insured
This is not what the policy says. The clause states 'There is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim'
A very different thing.
|
A very different thing.>>
Well done keithb, for exposing the red herring that Cliff Pope dangled before us. Selective quoting from his policy has resulted in a lively debate, which nevertheless has helped (I say in hope) dispel some of the common myths.
|
Thanks everyone for putting me right!
But it would nonetheless be helpful if insurance policies said what they meant instead of half the story and then letting people put their own interpretations on what is meant.
Just to go back to the other point which someone introduced - does a car need to be insured independently of anyone who may be entitled to drive it, or not? Can I leave an uninsured (but taxed) car on the road?
|
does a car need to be insured independently of anyone who may be entitled to drive it, or not? Can I leave an uninsured (but taxed) car on the road?
For a full detailed answer, you can look up the actual road traffic acts. But lets keep it simple here. As you know, it is up to you whether you insure your household goods, your life, or anything else that you fancy to insure. However, with cars you either declare a SORN if they are not kept on a public highway. If however, you do keep or "use" your car on the public highway, then as its owner, you have to get a Tax Disc for it. Now that should answer your question - because what docunets do you need for a Tax Disc? - You guessed it right - you have to produce a relevant certificate of insurance which proves that you are insured against third-party claims for death or injury and damage to property caused by that vehicle. Now if the insurance expires and you continue to keep the car on the road - then you are breaking the law. You as the owner of the car are keeping an uninsured car on the public highway, and if there is a claim arising from the car being on the road you could face claims to be met from your personal finaces. In addition you could be charged for keeping or "using" a car on the highway without insurance.
|
|
Road Traffic Act 1988 s.141-147 I belive. Lots of cases have dealt with this, even to the extent of saying that a car is used on the highway even if it is parked and immobile.
|
have dealt with this, even to the extent of saying that a car is used on the highway even if it is parked and immobile.
Thanks DavidHM. Hence my words "used" in inverted commas.
|
How about the scenario that I have:
Couple of months ago I brought a car for my son.
Insurance quote was way too high for a provisional, so waiting until he takes passes his test (hopfully in August) and takes the additional lessons, that will reduce the price by almost 1000 pounds.
Meantime I have been using his car on my own insurance.
However the tax on it expires at the end of June.
Can I get the car taxed using my insurance certificate?
John
|
Meaning... you've insured car (a) in your name and car (b) is covered under the 'driving other cars' extension?
You now want to tax car (b) with the insurance certificate relating to car (a), even though there is no mention of car (b) on it?
You can see where this is going, can't you? Incidentally, try Tesco insurance for your son ( tinyurl.com/e1f5 ) as AFAIK they don't differentiate between provisional and full licence holders.
|
|
|
|
