Could someone solve an Insurance argument

TigerTim

Could anyone answer this insurance argument we were having at work yesterday. My stand is that the driver is not insured. Here’s the story.

A guy buy’s a classic. He has “driving of other cars once he does not own them” on his own insurance policy. So he puts the car in his Mother’s, Father’s or someone else’s name. Now he reckons he’s insured.

Also sold a car to a fella about 2 years ago who was doing similar. Had his main car insured with his girlfriend as a named driver & driving of other cars enabled. So he says he’s going to let the GF drive the main car & put the one I sold in his girlfriend’s name so now he’s insured in the second car.

My argument is that you are insured to drive other cars once the other car is insured (& obviously in a road worthy condition). Anyone in the insurance or legal professions answer this, please, & help me win a fiver!!!

Thanks,

T.

BeardyGit

I can tell you for a fact, that you're both right....

It depends on your insurance policy. Mine is a normal comprehensive car policy and allows me drive other cars, whether or not there's another insurance policy in place on that vehicle, as long as it's not a rental and I don't own it. I have this confirmed in writing from my insurer - Quinn Direct of all companies....

My wifes policy, with another insurer, requires that any other vehicle she wants to drive must have a policy in place on it already.

So, there's your answer. You're both right.

Blue850

^ +1 It depends on his insurer. I've been with AXA and I had 3rd party cover on other cars not owned by me or my partner!!( I had to become a named driver on my wife's policy), but the other car had to be taxed.

Dades

I'm doubtful a policy of allowing you to drive other covered cars would cover you for this driving a classic - if the other car was on someone else's 'classic policy'.

But from the guys comments above, I guess it depends on the definition of "other cars" in your specific policy.

Also I don't understand why the guy in question doesn't insure the car as a classic in his own name. He has another policy so it's going to be cheap. Is he is under 25?

EDIT: Just checked my own policy and it just says any 'private motor car' (except rentals etc).

BeardyGit

Dades wrote: »

I'm doubtful a policy of allowing you to drive other covered cars would cover you for this driving a classic - if the other car was on someone else's 'classic policy'.

But from the guys comments above, I guess it depends on the definition of "other cars" in your specific policy.

Also I don't understand why the guy in question doesn't insure the car as a classic in his own name. He has another policy so it's going to be cheap. Is he is under 25?

With Quinn, the facility to drive other cars is dependent upon you being at least 25, with a full license.... That would likely be to prevent people getting around the 25 Y/O requirement for classic insurance policies, if that makes sense.

Gil

ji

He would only be covered on the "other car" as long as it had insurance in someone elses name....


The fivers yours boi:pac:

alancork1987

well your wrong on the over 25 bit.
i am 21 , full licence and have comprehensive cover with quinn and i asked them for written proof of my open driving.
what i recieved was a letter stating that i can legally drive any car once it is road leagal ie nct and taxed, and once i do not own the car. the policy states that i will have third party insurance on the said car.

this said i also have cleared it with my insurance company that allows me to drive a classic mustang on third part once i do not own the car.
SO GUESS WHAT IM DRIVING :D:D

ji

alancork1987 wrote: »

well your wrong on the over 25 bit.
i am 21 , full licence and have comprehensive cover with quinn and i asked them for written proof of my open driving.
what i recieved was a letter stating that i can legally drive any car once it is road leagal ie nct and taxed, and once i do not own the car. the policy states that i will have third party insurance on the said car.

this said i also have cleared it with my insurance company that allows me to drive a classic mustang on third part once i do not own the car.
SO GUESS WHAT IM DRIVING :D:D

Other car still has to be insured in other persons name..

alancork1987

well according to the letter sent out by quinn it just has to be nct and taxed.
its insured any way and i have been stopped by the guards and they have said nothing, i have a copy of my own policy in the car if any disputes do arise!

ji

alancork1987 wrote: »

well according to the letter sent out by quinn it just has to be nct and taxed.
its insured any way and i have been stopped by the guards and they have said nothing, i have a copy of my own policy in the car if any disputes do arise!

Lad check that again dosent sound right..

A car is not road legal with just tax and nct you would def need insurance.

Most gaurds havnt a clue but theres always one:pac:

Blue850

ji wrote: »

Lad check that again dosent sound right..

A car is not road legal with just tax and nct you would def need insurance.

But thats the point of cover to drive other cars, its your policy thats insuring the taxed and nct'd other car hence making it fully road legal while you're driving it. its only 3rd party but its insured...

nhlrules

ji wrote: »

He would only be covered on the "other car" as long as it had insurance in someone elses name....


The fivers yours boi:pac:

Not quite

Its all down to different companies at the end of the day

Im fully comp on my Volvo and I also have fully comp insurance to drive any car once Im not the legal owner and I have their permission to drive it

The car does not need to have a policy over it already as Im driving it under my own policy.(no reason to have 2 policies covering the one car)

This has been check ,verified and checked again and also have letter in writing from insurance company quoting the above

ji

Blue850 wrote: »

But thats the point of cover to drive other cars, its your policy thats insuring the taxed and nct'd other car hence making it fully road legal while you're driving it. its only 3rd party but its insured...

So your saying you can drive around in a car with no insurance on the window..

if you get pulled by the gaurds you can show a insurance policy of your original car and you'll be covered..even tho it'd have a different reg....

Jez i doubt it..

BeardyGit

alancork1987 wrote: »

well your wrong on the over 25 bit.
i am 21 , full licence and have comprehensive cover with quinn and i asked them for written proof of my open driving.
what i recieved was a letter stating that i can legally drive any car once it is road leagal ie nct and taxed, and once i do not own the car. the policy states that i will have third party insurance on the said car.

this said i also have cleared it with my insurance company that allows me to drive a classic mustang on third part once i do not own the car.
SO GUESS WHAT IM DRIVING :D:D

First off, I'm not wrong. Read your policy document which is actually what dictates your level of cover, exclusions and entitlements. I'd love to see the letter you have to be honest, because I simply don't believe you. Why would Quinn contradict what they printed in the 2008 policy document, applicable to all private motor vehicle policies taken out in that time?

Especially for a 21 year old..... You won't have a full NCB, and it'd be just as easy for you to drive the likes of EVO's etc. No way they're foolish enough to allow that, not a hope in hell.

Your interpretation ain't valid bucko. Not a hope.

ji

nhlrules wrote: »

Not quite

Its all down to different companies at the end of the day

Im fully comp on my Volvo and I also have fully comp insurance to drive any car once Im not the legal owner and I have their permission to drive it

The car does not need to have a policy over it already as Im driving it under my own policy.(no reason to have 2 policies covering the one car)

This has been check ,verified and checked again and also have letter in writing from insurance company quoting the above

Ok i stand corrected..

But it depends on the insurance company..


I enquired a while back about this "driving other cars" i was insured with axa..

The lady in the office said "if we went to galway shopping for the day and i was too tired to drive home you could drive my car home and you'd be covered under your own policy"

dutchcat

why would tax have anything to do with quinn or any other insurer? nct yes for the roadworthy part of it.

macplaxton

As others have said. Read the policy wording carefully and if in doubt, check with the insurer.

I've had a Norwich Union (Aviva UK) car policy in the past which had wording "car or motorcycle" in the driving other vehicles clause. With the proviso that I had a full valid licence for the vehicle of that category.

"DOC" cover seems to be fast disappearing in the UK as the plod don't like it. They like their ANPR. :mad: But it's always been the driver insured, not the car against 3rd party risks.

Anyway, whatever the wording, it's Third Party Only cover and whilst legal, could leave a massive hole in the pocket.

carchaeologist

macplaxton wrote: »

Anyway, whatever the wording, it's Third Party Only cover and whilst legal, could leave a massive hole in the pocket.

Yup,thats it in a nutshell.

nhlrules

macplaxton wrote: »

Anyway, whatever the wording, it's Third Party Only cover and whilst legal, could leave a massive hole in the pocket.

I have to disagree

Looking at my insurance here beside me and I am fully comp to drive other cars

BUT I SHOULD HAVE SAID IN MY EARLIER POST
Up to the value of 25k

carchaeologist

nhlrules wrote: »

I have to disagree

Looking at my insurance here beside me and I am fully comp to drive other cars

BUT I SHOULD HAVE SAID IN MY EARLIER POST
Up to the value of 25k

Interesting,all my policys said 3rd party only on other cars.

atlantean

carchaeologist wrote: »

Interesting,all my policys said 3rd party only on other cars.

Same as mine!

One other thing - AFAIK a car must have insurance on it before it can be taxed!

Hagar

What if you are buying the car on a HP or Lease agreement? In neither case are you the legal owner until a specified final payment is made.

macplaxton

Hagar wrote: »

What if you are buying the car on a HP or Lease agreement? In neither case are you the legal owner until a specified final payment is made.

That's usually covered by the wording.

(example from my AXA Certificate of Insurance)
Clause 5 (b) "Any Motor Car being driven, with the consent of the owner, by the Insured, provided such vehicle does not belong to him/her and is not hired to him/her under a hire purchase agreement"

galwaytt

dutchcat wrote: »

why would tax have anything to do with quinn or any other insurer? nct yes for the roadworthy part of it.

...I agree on the tax, but not the NCT. (fav subject, today ) First of all, if the car in question is less than 4 yrs old, it doesn't need one, so that's that out.

And, having an NCT doesn't make it roadworthy. You can still be prosecuted for an 'unroadworthy' car, even with a lovely shiney NCT disc on the window, say, for example, if you have worn tyres. Or brakes. Or rust (structural, that is, not cosmetic...). The NCT is no warranty or defence whatsoever, of the roadworthiness of a vehicle. It merely shows that once, in a 30 minute test, sometime inside the last 30 months, that they didn't find anything wrong, and that you paid them Eur48/whatever, for the privelege.

Crash a car/make a claim, and watch the assessor go to work, then see how much water your NCT will hold.....

galwaytt

nhlrules wrote: »

I have to disagree

Looking at my insurance here beside me and I am fully comp to drive other cars

BUT I SHOULD HAVE SAID IN MY EARLIER POST
Up to the value of 25k

...don't doubt you, stranger things have a happened, but that is truly unusual. I would like to see what one of those looks like, tbh. DOV is generally TPO.

dutchcat

And, having an NCT doesn't make it roadworthy. You can still be prosecuted for an 'unroadworthy' car, even with a lovely shiney NCT disc on the window, say, for example, if you have worn tyres. Or brakes. Or rust (structural, that is, not cosmetic...). The NCT is no warranty or defence whatsoever, of the roadworthiness of a vehicle. It merely shows that once, in a 30 minute test, sometime inside the last 30 months, that they didn't find anything wrong, and that you paid them Eur48/whatever, for the privelege.

Crash a car/make a claim, and watch the assessor go to work, then see how much water your NCT will hold.....[/quote]
you are absolutley correct 100% ,but ithink that from their point of view the car must be half ok as opposed to something that has been off the road for years,i know i tried to transfer from a 02 to my old 89 560 and they wouldnt do it without nct they would only cover it for 2 hours while i was bringing it for for the test strange but true

Saab Ed

Even if the policy allows someone to drive a car 3rd party (so long as its not in their name) there is no way I'd be happy to have my car uninsured against theft. Like if its just a runaround to get to work then thats one thing but I love my old Saab and the thoughts of some yobs nickin it is bad enough nevermind the fact that it wouldnt be insured. In fairness a classic policy aint OTT , 200 quid or so for your pride and joy IMO is money well spent.

MercMad

If you have a policy in your own name you are insured to drive another car third party, i.e somone elses, ONLY if the other car is covered by an active insurance policy.

Therefore you cannot buy two cars, one in your name, one in your girlfriends/spouse and have one policy covering them both.

Also a lot of Insurance companies do not insure cars over a certain age on regular policies so despite the fact that your document may state that you can drive somone leses car, if its a classic it may not be covered.

The short answer to the OP's question is NO he is not covered !