if i only have a provisional will insurance pay out if something happens when i dont

mcgarry098

hi,
i only have a provisional but if i get insurance will they pay out if something happens when a full licenced driver is not in the car,... our business teacher says they will pay out ,.. does anyone know what the answer is

thanks!

**Timbuk2**

They don't have to, but I think they usually will pay out, at least for the sake of the third party (regardless of what level of cover you actually have).

But with my policy with Aviva, which meant I wasn't actually named on my mother's policy and only had "accompanied driving cover" for 6 months for learning with, but they specifically stated that if I wasn't in the car with either of my parents, then they wouldn't pay out. But that isn't "standard" insurance, that's part of their 10 lessons deal.

But realistically - the test is 30 minutes long, takes place in 50km/h zones (mainly) and you can pass if you make up to 8 serious (Grade 2) faults - surely if you can drive without a fully licenced driver you'll pass that no problem

As for your question - ringing the insurance company won't hurt - see what they say!

mcgarry098

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

But realistically - the test is 30 minutes long, takes place in 50km/h zones (mainly) and you can pass if you make up to 8 serious (Grade 2) faults - surely if you can drive without a fully licenced driver you'll pass that no problem

i would do the test as soon as possible but by law you have to wait 6 months so thats another 5 months away for me!

matt70iu

Hi

Yeah generally they do pay out. Have got my licence now but drove on my provisional without anyone with me for years. Got hit from behind on the M50 in 2004 when I was 21. No driver with me, person who hit me was insured with Axa and they paid for the damage to my car no problem. I was with Quinn who asked to see a copy of my licence. Wasn't a problem being on the provisional.

Not only should I have had someone with me, but I should not have been on the M50 at all!

I would strongly suggest you don't do what I did which is break the law, but I think the insurance companies are well aware that the majority of people on a provisional have driven or do drive on the their own, but choose to turn a blind eye, even in the event of a claim.

I reckon this will change in the near future though:)

geetar

by law, insurance companies have to pay out according to my instructor anyway :cool:

PeakOutput

geetar wrote: »

by law, insurance companies have to pay out according to my instructor anyway :cool:

by law they only have to pay out for any third party damage you cause they dont have to pay out to repair your car if you dont stick to the terms of the policy

maxer68

Insurance companies have changed their attitudes since the new learner driver restrictions have come in and the fact that a test can be had with 6 weeks in most centres.

They will pay out all third party claims but in nmost instances they will now refuse to pay any of the damage to your car / medical expenses pertaining to your injuries. It can now also lead to refusal of insurance at renewal.

Yawns

A test can be had in 6 weeks maybe but a person must wait 6 months before sitting a test. While a lot of people do need practice in those 6 months, some people are more than capable of sitting a test with 2 - 3 months. Any decent examiner will weed out those who are not capable of passing and it's more money brought in

mcgarry098

Yawns wrote: »

A test can be had in 6 weeks maybe but a person must wait 6 months before sitting a test. D

what does that mean haha! so can i go and get my full licience now and be legal to drive by myself after having the provisional for only 1 month !!!! its confusin as well like everything else with the government :P

Yawns

nope you can't. What it means is when you book your full test the wait for it should only be about 6 weeks.

If you book now and turn up for one you will just have it cancelled and not get your money back. You have to have your learner's permit for 6 months before you can sit a full test.

cosmic

mcgarry098 wrote: »

i would do the test as soon as possible but by law you have to wait 6 months so thats another 5 months away for me!

Do you honestly think that after only a month of driving you're capable of going out on your own? Whatever about the basics of driving but do you think you'd be able to cope with all possible situations that you might encounter. You're being incredibly irresponsible if you think so.

mcgarry098

not at the moment im not but i know if i knew i could take my test in 3 weeks time i WOULD be ready for it as id get all of my driving lessons now and be on the road all the time! so instead im not going to hassle my parents to bring me out on the road until a month or two before the test! ( not gonna get insurance untill then as theres no point if they wouldnt cover me when rivin by myself)

Reloc8

geetar wrote: »

by law, insurance companies have to pay out according to my instructor anyway :cool:

Yep.

They'll pay out to a third party who you have injured or caused loss to.

And if its an accident which results in a claim its almost certain you'll be summonsed for driving unaccompanied and get a fair old whack of a fine & a disqualification.

:cool:

maxer68

mcgarry098 wrote: »

not at the moment im not but i know if i knew i could take my test in 3 weeks time i WOULD be ready for it as id get all of my driving lessons now and be on the road all the time! so instead im not going to hassle my parents to bring me out on the road until a month or two before the test! ( not gonna get insurance untill then as theres no point if they wouldnt cover me when rivin by myself)

That's why so many young drivers end up prematurely in graves.

Here's 2 examples of what I came across last weekend.

Road to Ballon, co Carlow. 4 cars parked on bend, car pulls out from being parked without looking. - As I had dropped speed to under 60km I was able to stop in time - just about - and with a large tyre mark on the road!

Nurney to Kildare road, Monday morning 8am. Car from Kildare stops to turn right towards kildangan. As I get closer, she decided to make the turn. Again, speed was under 50km and except for good breaks, there would ahve been an accident.


Anticipation is everything in driving. You cannot possibly understand what other motorists can do with a few weeks driving experience.

And yes I can talk - over 1million km without even a bump.

TwoShedsJackson

matt70iu wrote: »

Hi

Yeah generally they do pay out. Have got my licence now but drove on my provisional without anyone with me for years. Got hit from behind on the M50 in 2004 when I was 21. No driver with me, person who hit me was insured with Axa and they paid for the damage to my car no problem. I was with Quinn who asked to see a copy of my licence. Wasn't a problem being on the provisional.

Not only should I have had someone with me, but I should not have been on the M50 at all!

I would strongly suggest you don't do what I did which is break the law, but I think the insurance companies are well aware that the majority of people on a provisional have driven or do drive on the their own, but choose to turn a blind eye, even in the event of a claim.

I reckon this will change in the near future though:)

Think the OP is more concerned with his insurance, as opposed to the insurance of someone who hits him.

In your example it's the person who hit you's insurance that was claimed from, not yours. Had they been a learner on their own, they might have had problems with their insurance company.

Conversely, if you had gone into the back of someone else and damaged both cars, your insurance would have been paying out and while they would cover the damage done to the other car, they might not have covered the damage you did to your own car.

mcgarry098

yeah its my insurance im worried about! I know from doing business that insurance companies have a pool of money available to pay out in the event of an insured driver getting hit by an unisured driver.

Okay pulling out without looking is completly stupid,. now it doesnt take 40 years of driving to know that,. Actually , thats stuff you even have to know to pass your theory test before your ever meant to get in a car :P I know doing it in reality is another thing but it is common sense to know to check your mirrors. its ignorance, not a lack of experience, that stops you checking them!

As for your "i know i have one million accident free miles of whatever ya said" so does my granda! and believe me he is not a good driver! Still its something that id like to say when im older 1 million miles accident free driving.

Im not just blatantly putting down everything anyone with any bad criticism says, its just i think there's a lot of stereotyping basically implying young and foolish and irresponsible,. That is the case with alot of our age group however the majority of us arnt like that! You get experience by driving on the roads, so whys it irresponsible to say i feel i would be ready to pass my test in a months time after a few driving lessons and lots of time driving with my parents!


Rant over!, way to much stereotyping though i think!

mcgarry098

maxer68 wrote: »

Anticipation is everything in driving. You cannot possibly understand what other motorists can do with a few weeks driving experience.

And yes I can talk - over 1million km without even a bump.

to be honest aswell, if your sitting in the passenger seat of the car for years as a fairly nervous passenger to say the least (i constantly am gripping the arm rest when i see cars pulling out late etc, or people overtakin late,) you do become aware of the potential dangers, and again i know its another thing looking out for these hazards when you are actually driving but since you have the ideas of dangers in your head once you get to grips with working the car bla bla you'll have a good idea what you should be looking for!

Reloc8

mcgarry098 wrote: »

yeah its my insurance im worried about! I know from doing business that insurance companies have a pool of money available to pay out in the event of an insured driver getting hit by an unisured driver...

... That is the case with alot of our age group however the majority of us arnt like that! You get experience by driving on the roads, so whys it irresponsible to say i feel i would be ready to pass my test in a months time after a few driving lessons and lots of time driving with my parents!


Rant over!, way to much stereotyping though i think!

Gee I wonder where they get that from.




To be honest you'd have more standing in my eyes if your main concern was not 'will somebody else fork out for me if/when I break the law'

Del2005

geetar wrote: »

by law, insurance companies have to pay out according to my instructor anyway :cool:

While your instructor is correct that insurance companies have to pay out all 3rd party claims the important bit they left out is.

If the insurance company finds that you where driving outside the terms of your licence/permit, they will pay out 3rd party claims, they are entitled to take you to court to recoup any money paid out. As it's a civil mater it then becomes your job to prove that you where legally allowed drive not theirs to prove you wheren't.

Though I haven't heard of this happening yet, I can't see it lasting with the losses insurance companies are making.

daveharnett

Del2005 wrote: »

As it's a civil mater it then becomes your job to prove that you where legally allowed drive not theirs to prove you wheren't.

You might want to check your facts there. Civil cases can usually be decided on 'balance of probabilities' rather then 'beyond reasonable doubt', but the burden of proof is still with the person who's making the accusation.

Insurance companies haven't been covering unaccompanied learners out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. They cover them because
A: Even if they (collectively) didn't cover unaccompanied learners, they would still end up paying for their accidents through the uninsured drivers fund.
B: Given that they will have to pay for the crashes anyway, they want to collect those drivers' policy payments.

It's not a great state of affairs by any means, but in fairness it's not the insurance industry's job to enforce the law, and I don't think they are going to suddenly decide to do because they are broke.

Del2005

In answer to A. The poor law abiding saps pay for the MIBI not the insurance companies.

AFAIK B is being done due to A.

They are allowing illegal driving by paying out for unaccompanied drivers, that has to be against some law.

daveharnett

Del2005 wrote: »

They are allowing illegal driving by paying out for unaccompanied drivers, that has to be against some law.

Evidently not. I think the situation is different in the UK mind - unaccompanied learners cannot be insured (which means the vehicle is subject to seizure ).

That really isn't necessary imo - if AGS chose to enforce existing law, unaccompanied learners would become vanishingly rare within a few months. It's been what, four years (and 60,000 miles) since the 'crackdown' and I have not been asked to show my license at any of the dozen checkpoints I've met.

matt70iu

daveharnett wrote: »

Evidently not. I think the situation is different in the UK mind - unaccompanied learners cannot be insured (which means the vehicle is subject to seizure ).

That really isn't necessary imo - if AGS chose to enforce existing law, unaccompanied learners would become vanishingly rare within a few months. It's been what, four years (and 60,000 miles) since the 'crackdown' and I have not been asked to show my license at any of the dozen checkpoints I've met.

I know what you mean... I think initially they were attempting to enforce the law in 2008. I was stopped near swords when still on my provisional just after the law came in. The guard was seriously considering taking the car off me after showing him my provsional. He let me go in the end.

I think shortly after that, they realised they just don't have the space or resourses to sieze the cars from un accompanied learners. I do believe this will change in the future, but I don't think they will adopt the same hardline attitude like they have in the uk.

I would say to stamp it out completely, the guards will probably be forced to do it at an EU level. Cuse I've no doubt Brussels know we are not enforcing the law properly:)

Max Power1

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

They don't have to,

Yes they do!

Driving illegaly does NOT invalidate insurance cover.

Its a common query in this forum. I queried with the IIF who confirmed my stance above.

Yawns

Much like if you broke the speed limit and crashed you would still be covered even tho you were breaking the law. It's simples! Ask the meerkat!

**Timbuk2**

Max Power1 wrote: »

Yes they do!

Driving illegaly does NOT invalidate insurance cover.

Its a common query in this forum. I queried with the IIF who confirmed my stance above.

Ah right, that clears that up then! (I'm going to make a terrible Actuary )

But they still can claim costs off the person breaking the rule as they were in breach of the law, no?

Max Power1

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Ah right, that clears that up then! (I'm going to make a terrible Actuary )

But they still can claim costs off the person breaking the rule as they were in breach of the law, no?

They can claim costs if they pay anything other than 3rd party costs. Legally they cannot (afaik) pursue you for costs for 3rd party payouts.

You were not invalidating insurance by driving illegally, once you purchased the insurance on the basis of having a learner permit and not falsely claiming to have a full licence

mcgarry098

I rang quinn insurance and they said if you crash without a full licensed driver in the car you are breaking one of the terms of the contract and they will not pay out! FACT

Yawns

They'll probably also tell you if you crash whilst exceeding the speed limit they won't payout either as you are breaking the rules of the road etc etc. Stating FACT doesn't make it so nor does a quick phone call.

They have to pay out 3rd party claims. They may take you to court for the amount they paid out but they DO have to payout to a 3rd party first. FACT :P

maxer68

mcgarry098 wrote: »

I rang quinn insurance and they said if you crash without a full licensed driver in the car you are breaking one of the terms of the contract and they will not pay out! FACT

FACT - That's bull.

However if you have comprehensive insurance, they can and probably will refuse to pay for your car and any other costs, but they will pay third party costs.

Why so many people refuse to get a full driving licence is beyond comprehension. Driving is easy, just look at some of the people who get licences. All you have to do is follow a few fairly obvious rules, keep your eyes open and anticipate what lies ahead. - That's really it.

Too many people have fear put into them by others about driving when there's really very little to worry about.

Malcolm Tucker

People need to be very careful here.

More and more Insurance Companies are abandoning their lenient stance on this matter and are seeking to recover their outlay when they have to pay out on a third party claim caused by an unaccompanied Driver Permit holder.

If you don't have sufficient assets there's not a lot they can do, but if you are driving as a named driver under a parent's policy, drive unaccompanied and are responsible for an accident, then there's nothing to stop the Insurance company seeking recompense from your parent as the policyholder.

I do have sympathy for young drivers as outside of Dublin the public transport network in this country is very poor and often there is no alternative other than to drive yourself to work / college.

I'm just warning people not to be lulled into a false sense of security by genuine tales from people who weren't pursued by their Insurer. Almost all the Insurance Companies in Ireland are struggling, for various reasons, and they're trying to get back in the black any way they can.