Insurance grey area?

sogood

I have insurance cover that allows me to drive any other car, with the owners consent, as do many people. The stipulation is that I must not be "the registered owner" of the car in question. So, if I go to buy a car, am I insured to drive it home after purchasing it, given that I "own" it, but am not, as yet, "the registerd owner". Becoming "the registered owner" can take a week or two, when all the paperwork is completed by the motor registration people. I know a sale/purchase takes place, money changes hands etc, but the "registered owner" aspect is what I'm curious about. I could of course, ring my insurance company with the relevant details and transfer my cover, temporarily, to my new purchase, but this has cost me 50 euro a go, in the past. Any thoughts?

Random

When you send the logbook to Shannon to get the details changed you will put down the date of sale.

mickdw

You are only covered to drive other cars that are actually insured. So in this case, whether you are owner or not, you can not drive it until you ring up & transfer your policy to the new car.

ottostreet

Random wrote: »

When you send the logbook to Shannon to get the details changed you will put down the date of sale.

not sure what ya mean by this.

At the OP, i've heard that the minute you sign the logbook, you are technically the owner, and that if you drive it under a 3rd party extension, you aren't actually insured.

Random

"You are only covered to drive other cars that are actually insured."

This is not always true and varies from policy to policy. I'm with Quinn for example and this is not in the T&C.

mgbgt1978

+1 Random.....Folks please remember that just because your particular insurance company stipulates something doesn't mean all others are the same. Quinn Direct DO NOT insist that the "driving other cars" have to be insured in their own right.
My 18 year old son has a policy with them and was very careful to definitely confirm that this is the case.

mickdw

Random wrote: »

"You are only covered to drive other cars that are actually insured."

This is not always true and varies from policy to policy. I'm with Quinn for example and this is not in the T&C.

That is the exception though IMO

Roanmore

I'm was looking at buying a new car today (didn't happen) and I rang my insurance company (RSA) and they said I would be covered under my existing insurance, third party only. It depends on your policy and Insurance company.

MagicSean

I think being the "registered owner" also includes cars which you own but have not registered to your name. I found this in a policy I had a while back. Read through your policy and find the definition of a registered owner.

dr.fuzzenstein

I bought a new car, so while I was en route to pick it up, I rang my insurance company (Handsfree kit), gave them the reg of the new car amongst some other details so by the time I came out of the dealer's office, I was fully comp on the new car and ironically was also allowed to drive my own car under 3rd party cover. Took about 10 minutes and a credit card. It's just worth it for the piece of mind and there'll be no hassle should something happen.

B00MSTICK

mickdw wrote:

That is the exception though IMO

Hibernian and AXA were the same when I queried them.

cullen5998

I do a bit of law in college, the ownership passes over to you as soon as you pay for the car. So that would mean that you are the owner as soon as the money has been paid rather than when the registration goes through.

If you speed in the car and get caught on camera the speeding ticket would go to the old owner but you would be liable for it. Same kind of thing really.

L1011

Has there not been a case here where the concept of beneficial owner was dragged up and used against someone trying this on? Or am I imagining that...

A car registered to someone else but which you paid for and are the sole user of can be deemed to have you as the beneficial owner.

daveharnett

cullen5998 wrote: »

I do a bit of law in college, the ownership passes over to you as soon as you pay for the car. So that would mean that you are the owner as soon as the money has been paid rather than when the registration goes through.

If you speed in the car and get caught on camera the speeding ticket would go to the old owner but you would be liable for it. Same kind of thing really.

That's not in dispute here. The point is that the policy document refers to a 'registered owner', rather than an 'owner'. While the new owner will retroactively become the 'registered owner' from the date of sale, at the time of sale the only registration cert in existence names the seller/previous owner.

As to the original point, I wouldn't chance it. By the time any case came up, the registration would be finished, and you would (after the fact) have become the registered owner from the date of purchase. It only takes a few minutes to transfer insurance to another car, and I've always found any price difference to be fair.

unkel

cullen5998 wrote: »

I do a bit of law in college, the ownership passes over to you as soon as you pay for the car. So that would mean that you are the owner as soon as the money has been paid rather than when the registration goes through.

Of course. You are the owner as soon as you've bought the car. What OP and others are questioning what "registered owner" means in the insurance contract. If it just means owner, why not state just owner. I expect the OP is correct in that until the car is actually registered into the new owners name in Shannon, he is insured on the car because he is not yet the "registered owner"

I'd like to see this confirmed though by someone in the know / with links, etc.

Edit: beaten to it by daveharnett

cullen5998

In my view the insurance companies state "registered owner" so people dont buy 3 cars and insure one and then just drive all three.

It is a gray area, if you never signed the log book you would never become the registered owner but you would be the legal owner of the goods which makes you responsible for them.

daveharnett

cullen5998 wrote: »

In my view the insurance companies state "registered owner" so people dont buy 3 cars and insure one and then just drive all three.

In that case, why not state 'owner' rather than 'registered owner'? Is there anything to stop you 'selling' your car to your oh/baby/dog for a euro/sweetie/biscuit and making them the 'registered owner'?

I'm thinking that if it came down to it, 'upmost good faith' could trump all of this hair splitting. Your insurance policy will state that you must notify the insurer of anything that might alter your insurable risk. Buying and driving a new car definitely falls into that category.

cullen5998

daveharnett wrote: »

In that case, why not state 'owner' rather than 'registered owner'? Is there anything to stop you 'selling' your car to your oh/baby/dog for a euro/sweetie/biscuit and making them the 'registered owner'?

I'm thinking that if it came down to it, 'upmost good faith' could trump all of this hair splitting. Your insurance policy will state that you must notify the insurer of anything that might alter your insurable risk. Buying and driving a new car definitely falls into that category.

Fair point dave. I think that the insurance companies are actually being sound for allowing this in the first place though.
Although its a bit flawed, when i saw this on my policy i rang Quinn and asked was it true? they said yes so i asked what were the limitations on it and asked could i drive a Ferrari or other high performance cars and they said yes which is a bit mad really as i was only 19 at the time which is a bit mad since i was driving a bmw 316 at the time:D

sogood

Thanks for all the replies and input. I was just pointing out a possible grey area and wouldn't consider putting it to the test personally, as we all know what insurance companies say, and then actually do when it comes to the crunch (no pun intended).But by the same token, people guilty of various crimes have often gotten away scot free on a point of law, based upon an interpretation of some actual wording and the wording I was concentrating on was "registered owner". I would take this to mean, registered at Shannon with the vehicle registration people, which happens several days after you take actual ownership of your new car.
As stated, I wouldn't risk it personally, especially if you meet a guard who doesn't share your interpretation of the law. But it does raise the point made, that you could buy and insure a small engined car and drive a supercar on the same policy, provided the supercar was in your grannies' name!

dr.fuzzenstein

cullen5998 wrote: »

Fair point dave. I think that the insurance companies are actually being sound for allowing this in the first place though.
Although its a bit flawed, when i saw this on my policy i rang Quinn and asked was it true? they said yes so i asked what were the limitations on it and asked could i drive a Ferrari or other high performance cars and they said yes which is a bit mad really as i was only 19 at the time which is a bit mad since i was driving a bmw 316 at the time:D

Remember, it's 3rd party only, so if you wrote off the Ferrari you'd be stuck with the bill...

galwaytt

sogood wrote: »

I could of course, ring my insurance company with the relevant details and transfer my cover, temporarily, to my new purchase, but this has cost me 50 euro a go, in the past. Any thoughts?

...you're going to insure it anyway, so you're going to incur the €50 one way or another, so what does difference does it make, when you do it ? Just do it on the phone, as you collect the car.