Insurace with no driver license??

water-man

Hello,

My father was classed as blind last April. He renewed his car insurance in May. He doesn't remember if he informed the insurance company that he was blind. He thinks he did inform them and was told that because he did have a valid license before that he could insure it again. I don't know if this is correct.

He hasn't been driving since but I sometimes drive it when I'm at home, I'm a named driver.

Basically I'm wondering if I am/have been insured in this car since May 2010. I've stopped driving it since I found out. Called insurance company (asking a general question) and was informed you need a valid license to insure car.

Does anyone have any opinion on this?

Regards,

WM

sdanseo

Once his licence was valid when he took out the policy at last date of renewal, and your licence is current, and you're name on the policy, I can't see any reason why it's not perfectly valid - although it might have ceased to be so when he informed them of his condition. Certainly if there's been a renewal since though, It's fairly dodgy as no insurance company is going to let you be a named driver on the policy of someone who can't drive - you may as well be in your own name money wise and risk wise.

Get him to ring the insurance company quoting his policy number and explaining the situation and ask directly whether or not you are covered. If not, deny all knowledge of having driven the car!

patwicklow

you do need a valid licence before you can get insurance, as insurance companys would ask to see it before they insure you.otherwise a claim would be void with out one.

Henry Ford III

OP, his loss of sight and classification of blindless is a material event, and therefore the obligation is with him to inform his insurer immediately. The policy should have been cancelled and a refund obtained if appropriate.

If he didn't any subsequent claim is void/voidable.



p.s. Sorry to hear about his loss of sight. A tough thing to deal with for all.

CiniO

So how is this, that a person without a licence can't insure a car.
On the other hand only car owner can insure the car.

So what in case of someone, who doesn't drive (has no licence) but would like to have a car, and use his carer, friend, grandson, etc. to give him a lift in his car sometimes.
What then?

Seems to bo no such option. Am i right?

Del2005

CiniO wrote: »

So how is this, that a person without a licence can't insure a car.
On the other hand only car owner can insure the car.

So what in case of someone, who doesn't drive (has no licence) but would like to have a car, and use his carer, friend, grandson, etc. to give him a lift in his car sometimes.
What then?

Seems to bo no such option. Am i right?

Get a taxi or pay for the other person to hire a car.

The cost of insurance, deprecation, maintenance, fuel etc would be crazy for someone without a licence to pay for the occasional lift.

coylemj

patwicklow wrote: »

you do need a valid licence before you can get insurance, as insurance companys would ask to see it before they insure you.otherwise a claim would be void with out one.

Not true, it's certainly the case that when taking out a policy for the first time as a person with a full licence they will want to see the licence but just because the licence has expired doesn't mean that you cannot renew the insurance and you will still be insured.

As long as you have not been disqualified the insurance company will continue to cover you and you are fully insured regardless of whether your licence is still current or not.

In relation to this thread, being blind would be a de facto disqualification because blindness in both eyes is one of the listed disabilities which renders a person ineligible to get a licence.

aujopimur

You need a licence to drive, not to insure.

water-man

Evening,

Thanks for all the replies. For the record I have my own car and am insured in my own name on it. I just sometimes drive my fathers car (on which I'm a named driver) when I'm home as it is bigger and more comfortable when taking my parents somewhere.

WM

slimjimmc

sdonn wrote: »

Once his licence was valid when he took out the policy at last date of renewal, and your licence is current, and you're name on the policy, I can't see any reason why it's not perfectly valid - although it might have ceased to be so when he informed them of his condition. Certainly if there's been a renewal since though, It's fairly dodgy as no insurance company is going to let you be a named driver on the policy of someone who can't drive - you may as well be in your own name money wise and risk wise.

Get him to ring the insurance company quoting his policy number and explaining the situation and ask directly whether or not you are covered. If not, deny all knowledge of having driven the car!

patwicklow wrote: »

you do need a valid licence before you can get insurance, as insurance companys would ask to see it before they insure you.otherwise a claim would be void with out one.

In Ireland the only requirement for insurance is that you must hold or have held a driving licence for the class of vehicle and not be disqualified. There is no requirement for your licence to be valid neither at the time the policy was taken out nor must it remain so during the term on the policy. Insurance is not voided by an invalid licence.

CiniO wrote: »

So how is this, that a person without a licence can't insure a car.
On the other hand only car owner can insure the car.

So what in case of someone, who doesn't drive (has no licence) but would like to have a car, and use his carer, friend, grandson, etc. to give him a lift in his car sometimes.
What then?

Seems to bo no such option. Am i right?

I'm sure there must be some suitable insurance available, but it's probably expensive.

vetstu

I'm insured with Quinn and they never asked for drivers license or driver number or anything before giving insurance.
Sure they will take your money and then just not pay out if anything happens.

aujopimur

My aunt is disabled, she has never had a driving licence, she owns and insures her car in her own name and has open cover which allows anybody with a valid licerce to drive it.

ottostreet

aujopimur wrote: »

My aunt is disabled, she has never had a driving licence, she owns and insures her car in her own name and has open cover which allows anybody with a valid licerce to drive it.

Your disabled aunt is driving around, despite never getting a licence of any description? Really?

No wait...I might be reading this wrong.

CiniO

aujopimur wrote: »

My aunt is disabled, she has never had a driving licence, she owns and insures her car in her own name and has open cover which allows anybody with a valid licerce to drive it.

Do you know which insurance company provided her with cover?

seamus

For the record, every insurance policy I've taken out has required either my licence number or a photocopy of my licence and that of my named driver.

water-man wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. For the record I have my own car and am insured in my own name on it. I just sometimes drive my fathers car (on which I'm a named driver) when I'm home as it is bigger and more comfortable when taking my parents somewhere.

You do not necessarily need to be a named driver on your father's policy.
If you have fully comprehensive insurance on your own car, this usually allows you to drive any other car with third-party insurance, including your father's. The only stipulation in this case is that the car cannot belong to you or be part of a hire-purchase agreement. There does not need to be another insurance policy on the car. Obviously it will still need to be taxed and NCTed.

Obviously there are risks - you've third-party only insurance when driving your father's car, so if it's stolen or crashed, the car is gone. Though it might be possible to insure it for theft only under the home policy if you explain the situation to them.

slimjimmc wrote: »

In Ireland the only requirement for insurance is that you must hold or have held a driving licence for the class of vehicle and not be disqualified. There is no requirement for your licence to be valid neither at the time the policy was taken out nor must it remain so during the term on the policy.

Correct, but it only covers people who have not been disqualified from holding a licence. It's to ensure that drivers are still covered even if their licence has expired. It does not cover anyone who has been refused a licence. Now there could be a loophole here in that if he has not applied for a new licence, then he hasn't been legally refused one and is technically covered.

But even so, as pointed out above it's a material piece of information that the insurance company is entitled to know. Whether the entire policy is voidable is a matter for the courts. In general there is a obligation for the insurance company to provide 3rd party cover unless the insured has breached the terms of the insurance certificate. In this case, the OP's father would not have and so he would be legally covered in the case of an accident, as would the OP.

A person does not need to be the legal owner of a vehicle to get insurance in their name on that car, however they are restricted to 3rd party only insurance.

As I mention above, if water-man has comprehensive insurance on his own vehicle, then he probably doesn't need to be a named driver on his father's car and his father doesn't require insurance (provided that he doesn't drive the car, obviously).

Fey!

When you apply for insurance you are asked what type of license you hold, and whether or not you have any medical conditions.

It is assumed when you renew that the license and medical condition, along with any other things asked when you get the policy first, have not changed. If they have, then you are expected to inform your insurance provider.

If things have changed and you haven't told them, then they may use this to void the policy, as technically you have breached your contract with them through non-declaration.

If your father is not driving the car at all, then he is no longer the primary driver.

I think that your best bet is to talk to someone in the industry (possibly a friendly broker) and get their professional opinion.

Or talk directly to the insurance company.

seamus wrote: »

As I mention above, if water-man has comprehensive insurance on his own vehicle, then he probably doesn't need to be a named driver on his father's car and his father doesn't require insurance (provided that he doesn't drive the car, obviously).

That is dependent on Water-mans insurance; some policies have driving of other cars on the basis that the car being driven has it's own policy too.

seamus

Fey! wrote: »

That is dependent on Water-mans insurance; some policies have driving of other cars on the basis that the car being driven has it's own policy too.

I've heard this mentioned, but I've never actually seen it on a policy. In general if you have "Open drive" on your policy, which allows other people to drive your car, those people must have their own policy. However if you have the "driving other cars" extension on your policy, which allows you to drive other cars, usually the other vehicle does not require insurance.

But as always these things should be verified before hopping into another car.

Del2005

seamus wrote: »

I've heard this mentioned, but I've never actually seen it on a policy. In general if you have "Open drive" on your policy, which allows other people to drive your car, those people must have their own policy. However if you have the "driving other cars" extension on your policy, which allows you to drive other cars, usually the other vehicle does not require insurance.

But as always these things should be verified before hopping into another car.

You're confusing Open drive and "Driving other cars 3rd party extension" (TPE) on car insurance policies.

Any Open Drive policy I've ever seen allows anyone with a full licence, generally over 25, to drive your car fully covered on Your Insurance Policy.

TPE on policies is different for each company, but they are all done on the person drivings policy and not yours. Some need the car to be insured others don't, the only true way to know is to call your insurance company or very carefully read all your policy documents.

slimjimmc

seamus wrote: »

Correct, but it only covers people who have not been disqualified from holding a licence. It's to ensure that drivers are still covered even if their licence has expired. It does not cover anyone who has been refused a licence. Now there could be a loophole here in that if he has not applied for a new licence, then he hasn't been legally refused one and is technically covered.

I understand the motive of the clause which is why I stated that it also requires you "not be disqualified". I should clarify that this means "not be currently disqualified". A previous disqualification which has been lifted isn't a barrier although it does come under the full disclosure clause.

You can be refused a licence and not be disqualified if you let it lapse by more than 10 years and failed the test to get a new one, but you still held a licence.

seamus wrote: »

But even so, as pointed out above it's a material piece of information that the insurance company is entitled to know. Whether the entire policy is voidable is a matter for the courts. In general there is a obligation for the insurance company to provide 3rd party cover unless the insured has breached the terms of the insurance certificate. In this case, the OP's father would not have and so he would be legally covered in the case of an accident, as would the OP.

Indeed, but I would say that as the Da is legally blind he is contractually obliged to inform his insurer, if he failed to do so (he can't remember), and especially at renewal time, then his insurer may consider this grounds to refuse liability in accordance with the contract. He may be legally insured and the insurer is obligated to pay 3rd party claims but they could pursue him through the civil courts for any costs paid in the event of such a claim.

seamus

Del2005 wrote: »

You're confusing Open drive and "Driving other cars 3rd party extension" (TPE) on car insurance policies.

Nope.

Any Open Drive policy I've ever seen allows anyone with a full licence, generally over 25, to drive your car fully covered on Your Insurance Policy.

...provided they hold a policy in their own name on another car. That's how I've seen it on every Open Drive policy I've ever seen.

TPE on policies is different for each company, but they are all done on the person drivings policy and not yours.

TPE allows you to drive other cars with TPO cover. It is always a clause/benefit enacted on your policy (i.e. the driver) and no-one else's. But in some cases it may require the other vehicle to be insured.

BeardyGit

It's all down to the insurer and the contract/policy you have with them.

I've had open driving policies in the past, and they've never required or made mention of permitted drivers being required to have their own insurance policy, only that they're over a minimum age and have a valid driving license.

CiniO

seamus wrote: »

In general if you have "Open drive" on your policy, which allows other people to drive your car, those people must have their own policy.

Are you serious here?
What would be the point in opendrive if everyone allowed to drive would have to have it's own policy.

seamus

CiniO wrote: »

Are you serious here?
What would be the point in opendrive if everyone allowed to drive would have to have it's own policy.

They have to have their own policy on another vehicle. This at least ensures that those driving the car have some experience (and are capable of getting insurance!) and aren't using the car full time.
As said, it varies from insurer to insurer.

I've personally never seen the point in open drive unless you have some reason why others would need to routinely drive your car, such as an MPV for carrying a kid's football team around or something. It seems to add about 20% onto the cost of your policy.

Fey!

seamus wrote: »

Nope.
...provided they hold a policy in their own name on another car. That's how I've seen it on every Open Drive policy I've ever seen.
TPE allows you to drive other cars with TPO cover. It is always a clause/benefit enacted on your policy (i.e. the driver) and no-one else's. But in some cases it may require the other vehicle to be insured.

Del2005 is right. Open drive (anyone between 25 and 71 who holds or has held a full license) does not require the driver to hold their own policy.

Driving Other Cars may or may not require a policy on the car you are driving depending on the individual policy. The same goes for TPF&T/Fully Comp when driving other cars; again, it depends on your policy.

meathstevie

It's incorrect to assume that you have to be the owner of the car to insure it. If that was the case every hire purchase yoke on the road would be insured in the name of a finance company.

What an insurance company will look for before it'll insure a car in your name is whether or not you have an interest in the vehicle.

For example if you change over your policy to a friends car for few days because your motor is undergoing serious repairs and you're getting a lend of friends motor you wouldn't want to have it insured TPE just in case you crashed it. A lot of insurance companies will accept that as good reason to transfer your insurance to a car you don't own.

The driving licence issue is rather straightforward, if you don't have a valid one you can't drive. It's a rather serious offence to drive without a licence.

In the case of the OP's blind father I think it's quite possible for the man to take out an insurance policy with himself as the beneficial owner of the car and other people nominated to drive it. He'll just have to explain the situation to the insurance company. There's quite a number of people out there who can't drive due to a varying range of medical conditions/disabilities who own cars and have themselves driven by carers/family members.

I think the OP's father should look into reclassifying his car for tax purposes as well. His diagnosis of blindness could allow him to fall into a much more beneficial VRT and road tax category as well.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

Obviously it will still need to be taxed and NCTed.

Another urban myth that gets repeated here far too often. There is no stipulation in any insurance policy that I've ever seen that says my car has to be taxed and NCTed as a condition of cover.

seamus wrote: »

I've heard this mentioned, but I've never actually seen it on a policy. In general if you have "Open drive" on your policy, which allows other people to drive your car, those people must have their own policy.

As above, urban myth, not true. If it was true it would say so on the policy, as it is all it says is that the person must have a full licence and be aged between 25 and 70.

If they had their own policy they wouldn't need your open driving.

The point that the insurance companies make however is that if someone who has his own policy drives your car and has a smash that you as the insured are required to make the claim under his policy before you go to your own insurance company to get them to cough up i.e. they will only act as a safety net if the other guy's insurance is inadequate to meet the claim. If the other guy has no insurance in his own name then you can make the claim under your own policy.

seamus

coylemj wrote: »

Another urban myth that gets repeated here far too often. There is no stipulation in any insurance policy that I've ever seen that says my car has to be taxed and NCTed as a condition of cover.

I didn't mean in terms of insurance cover, I meant legally the car needs to be taxed and NCTed

If they had their own policy they wouldn't need your open driving.

"Driving other cars" doesn't come as default on all policies. As I say, this is my experience. I think we're all agreed that everyone should read their policy documents inside-out before hopping into any car.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

I didn't mean in terms of insurance cover, I meant legally the car needs to be taxed and NCTed

It also needs two headlights, indicators, brake lights etc. but this thread is about insurance - NCT and tax are red herrings. Anyone reading your post would have interpreted it as meaning that you would not be covered for insurance without the car being taxed and having a current NCT.

seamus wrote: »

"Driving other cars" doesn't come as default on all policies.

I don't recall anyone claiming that it did.

seamus wrote: »

I think we're all agreed that everyone should read their policy documents inside-out before hopping into any car.

Again, stating the obvious. It is still the case that for someone to be covered to drive under my open driving that they do not need a policy in their own name for a different car, that is the issue I was addressing.

seamus

Jaysus, must be pedantic Friday on boards :rolleyes:

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

Jaysus, must be pedantic Friday on boards :rolleyes:

Excuse me, you're the one who's telling us that a car needs to be taxed and NCTed.

Pot and kettle?

raveydavey

Sounds a bit tricky alright. But can I ask, why don't you just get rid of it? He can't drive it and you only drive it the odd time when you're there. I think you should sell it and use the money. I'm sure there are things that could be done to the house to make life easier for him. Put the money to something useful as opposed to keeping something somewhat useless. Just a thought.
Good luck.

Esel

seamus wrote: »

In general if you have "Open drive" on your policy, which allows other people to drive your car, those people must have their own policy.

I side with the other posters who have disagreed with this statement. I'm not disputing that you may have seen it on a particular policy, but it's the first time I've ever heard it!

water-man

An update if anyone is interested:

Fathers license officially expired he was not dis-qualified. He's of the age where license must be renewed every year or two.

Phoned insurance company, explained situation and was told that the car is still insured. But come renewal time it will have to be insured in some one else's name.

I would like to thank everyone who replied and offered advise, it is much appreciated.

Regards,

WM