Provisional licence rules and insurance queery

Charisma

Can someone clarify somethings here for me- I know the answers but need to have it in black and white for someone else

Q.1 Does a provisional licenced driver, who is name driver on the family car have to have a fully licenced driver in the car with them at all times. I ask this as the provisional licence driver in question has lots of friends on provisional licences who have been stopped driving alone and who have not been charged.

Q.2 If a provisional licenced driver is driving un accompanied and has an accident are they covered by the insurance policy they are named on.

Q.3 In the case of a fully licenced driver who is named driver on a family policy, where the main driver is insured to drive other cars, is the named driver on that policy also insured to drive other cars.

phasers

1. A person on a learner permit has to have a fully licensed driver with them at all times. Your friends were just lucky and caught the Garda on a good day I'da say.

2. I don't think so, as you are breaking the law and therefore the insurance company should not have to pay out if you get into an accident.

Faith+1

Charisma wrote: »

Q.3 In the case of a fully licenced driver who is named driver on a family policy, where the main driver is insured to drive other cars, is the named driver on that policy also insured to drive other cars.

Hmmm that's a tricky one. I'd reckon the fully licenced driver has to have their own policy and generally be over 25 years of age to drive other cars. I'd ring the insurance company to be 100% sure.:cool:

**Timbuk2**

Q.1 Yes you do. In the past they were more lenient, but they are starting to clamp down on it now. Don't take the risk, it's an €1000 fine for driving alone (and another €1000 for driving without L-Plates). There is a reason that LP drivers can't drive on their own.

Q.2 No, you are not. What generally happens is that you are insured for the sake of the third party in the accident, but the insurance company will then sue you for the money, as you breached the policy (not positive about this, but I think that's the case)

Q.3 I'm not sure about this, as usually the policy where you can drive other cars is subject to conditions, such as being over 25 and having at least a year of NCB. I'd guess that you are only insured to drive your policy holders car, but definitely ring your insurance company about this - you don't want to think that you are insured when you are actually not.

ADI34722

Charisma wrote: »

Q.3 In the case of a fully licenced driver who is named driver on a family policy, where the main driver is insured to drive other cars, is the named driver on that policy also insured to drive other cars.

No is the answer. Its the policy holder who would be insured to drive other insured cars. In most policys it will state when this will apply. On my personal policy it states that i can operate other cars only if certian critera are met ie. The other car is insured, I dont operate it for hire/reward (taxi), and i am only covered in third party. My missus is a named driver on my policy and it states it for myself only and not the named driver.

Wishbone Ash

phasers wrote: »

2. I don't think so, as you are breaking the law and therefore the insurance company should not have to pay out if you get into an accident.

If that was the case, what would be the point in having insurance? Do you really think an innocent third party victim should be left without compensation because the LP driver was unaccompanied?

If insurance was cancelled because the driver was breaking the law, there would be chaos. No compensation given to victims of an accident caused by a driver doing 51 in a 50kph zone, or an amber gambler, or a driver in a defective vehicle! Where would it end?

ADI34722

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If that was the case, what would be the point in having insurance? Do you really think an innocent third party victim should be left without compensation because the LP driver was unaccompanied?

If insurance was cancelled because the driver was breaking the law, there would be chaos. No compensation given to victims of an accident caused by a driver doing 51 in a 50kph zone, or an amber gambler, or a driver in a defective vehicle! Where would it end?

The affected party is still covered if a 2 car collision happens. If you crash your car on your own and you need to repair it your not covered.

Wishbone Ash

ADI34722 wrote: »

The affected party is still covered if a 2 car collision happens. If you crash your car on your own and you need to repair it your not covered.

Yes, I was replying to phasers post and presumed we were referring to accidents involving a third party.

(Many younger drivers and Learners only have 3rd party insurance anyway so they have to fund their own repairs regardless)

ADI34722

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Yes, I was replying to phasers post and presumed we were referring to accidents involving a third party.

(Many younger drivers and Learners only have 3rd party insurance anyway so they have to fund their own repairs regardless)

Apoligies Ash. Miss read your reply there.

kirving

If you drive on your own, with just a provisional you are still fully insured. Just like a speeder, a drunk driver, etc.

However, the insurance company may go after you for the money. I haven't heard of this happening myself though.

What would concern me more is, that the gardai have apparently become extremely strict on driving alone and a few thousand people have been fined.

Richie15

The first one is simple - it doeesn't matter what car it is, if you've a Learner Permit you must be accompanied. (If you still have a Provisional Licence, it's definitely out of date by now so that's another issue.)

As for the insurance, there's no point in us debating it here, because it depends on a number of things, such as your level of cover, your company and whatever it says on your policy. On my first policy there was a clause that said I wasn't covered if I'd any alcohol in my system, even if it was under the legal limit. If there's a specific part like that saying you're not covered while driving unaccompanied, there's your answer. Otherwise it's more complicated.

If you break a red light, or if you're speeding, or you pull through a junction where you don't have right-of-way, you're breaking the law but you're still insured. It just means it's your fault. So I'd say the same should be true of driving unaccompanied.

By the way, don't take this to mean I agree with you driving unaccompanied - I don't. But if you're gonna do it anyway, make sure you're still insured - ring your company if you're in any doubt.

J.S. Pill

Richie15 wrote: »

As for the insurance, there's no point in us debating it here, because it depends on a number of things, such as your level of cover, your company and whatever it says on your policy. On my first policy there was a clause that said I wasn't covered if I'd any alcohol in my system, even if it was under the legal limit. If there's a specific part like that saying you're not covered while driving unaccompanied, there's your answer. Otherwise it's more complicated.

If you break a red light, or if you're speeding, or you pull through a junction where you don't have right-of-way, you're breaking the law but you're still insured. It just means it's your fault. So I'd say the same should be true of driving unaccompanied.

By the way, don't take this to mean I agree with you driving unaccompanied - I don't. But if you're gonna do it anyway, make sure you're still insured - ring your company if you're in any doubt.

Most people here seem to be just guessing what their policies cover. If you're unsure about anything for the love of jesus just get on the phone and clarify it with your insurance company/broker.

In general, if you have an accident and you neglect your duty of care, whether this is through driving unaccompanied with a learner permit or driving whilst impaired, the insurance company still must pay any third party damages that arise. They are entitled to flatly refuse to pay out on own damage costs (i.e. the comprehensive aspect of your policy). it's rare enough for the insurer to try to recoup the third party costs from the insured, especially if the third party costs are substantial.

Another way for an insurer to avoid a claim that is when the insurance company cancels a policy from inception due to a breach of the contract. So even if you had a policy in force for say 6 months the insurance company can still backdate cancellation to make it such that you never had cover with them. If there was no contract in force there is no obligation to pay out on a claim. This mechanism is resorted to more often in cases of non disclosure (i.e. giving false information or neglecting to mention important material facts) rather than for breach of duty of care.

Trust me, I work in insurance (man, the ladies love that line)

Richie15

J.S. Pill wrote: »

In general, if you have an accident and you neglect your duty of care ... They are entitled to flatly refuse to pay out on own damage costs (i.e. the comprehensive aspect of your policy).

Then what's the point of being fully comp in the first place? I thought the whole idea was you're covered for own damage in at-fault accidents.

J.S. Pill

Richie15 wrote: »

Then what's the point of being fully comp in the first place? I thought the whole idea was you're covered for own damage in at-fault accidents.

Yes but this is subject to you fulfilling your end of the contract i.e. paying your premium, keeping your vehicle in roadworthy condition, not doing retarded things like drink driving etc etc.

Richie15

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Yes but this is subject to you fulfilling your end of the contract i.e. paying your premium, keeping your vehicle in roadworthy condition, not doing retarded things like drink driving etc etc.

That's if it's actually stated in the wording of the contract. Like what I was saying about the alcohol clause on mine. But if it's not in the contract, you can't be breaching it surely?