Insurance on car I don't own?

Daith · 29-01-2013 1:16pm #1

Hey folks, hopefully a quick question.

My brother moved to Oz for a while. Can I get insured on his car without being the owner? I think he still is insured on the car so I could possibly get added as a named driver. Or can I get my own policy with a different insurance company?

biko · 29-01-2013 1:18pm

He can name you as a driver on his policy.
This is probably the easiest way to go.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 1:26pm

biko wrote: »

He can name you as a driver on his policy.
This is probably the easiest way to go.

But he would be the main driver so it would be the wrong way to go.

Simply put, can you insure something that you don't own?

If reading that question again didn't make it clear for you then this will. No, you can't.

listermint · 29-01-2013 1:29pm

MugMugs wrote: »

But he would be the main driver so it would be the wrong way to go.

Simply put, can you insure something that you don't own?

If reading that question again didn't make it clear for you then this will. No, you can't.

Well technically you can thats a tad bit of a lie there.

You can drive other vehicles third party fire and theft.

you need to LOOK at the terms and conditions of your contract with the insurer.

Your statement is fiction.

peteb2 · 29-01-2013 1:33pm

He doesn't have a contract with an insurer. He has no insurance policy.

And for the record, you can't drive other vehicle third party fire and theft. You can drive other vehicle Third Party Only - if your policy allows it.

So as Mugsmug said, you can't insure something you don't own. The insurance company won't take an instruction to add someone to the policy unless it comes from the the policy holder.

listermint · 29-01-2013 1:36pm

peteb2 wrote: »

He doesn't have a contract with an insurer. He has no insurance policy.

And for the record, you can't drive other vehicle third party fire and theft. You can drive other vehicle Third Party Only - if your policy allows it.

So as Mugsmug said, you can't insure something you don't own. The insurance company won't take an instruction to add someone to the policy unless it comes from the the policy holder.

Youve contradicted yourself there.

I agree with the third party part, excuse my fire and theft bit.

Statement is still fiction though

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 1:39pm

listermint wrote: »

Youve contradicted yourself there.

I agree with the third party part, excuse my fire and theft bit.

Statement is still fiction though

You accept you're wrong but insist that you're not?

odd

So tell me, how do you go about getting a Third Party only quote right now?

From memory the current line of Insurers in Ireland only offer this to Island drivers.

listermint · 29-01-2013 1:42pm

MugMugs wrote: »

You accept you're wrong but insist that you're not?

odd

So tell me, how do you go about getting a Third Party only quote right now?

From memory the current line of Insurers in Ireland only offer this to Island drivers.

I dont think you quite understand what i said. Shall i explain it in simple terms ?

I excepted i was wrong about the fire and theft part.

If you look up the terms of your policy you will find in MANY policys it allows you to drive other vehicles Third party covered, on the provision that you have permission of the owner. The vehicle is not owned by you and is in a road worthy condition.

As i said already, your original statement is fiction. Read the terms and conditions . This may or may not apply to your policy.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 1:45pm

listermint wrote: »

I dont think you quite understand what i said. Shall i explain it in simple terms ?

I excepted i was wrong about the fire and theft part.

If you look up the terms of your policy you will find in MANY policys it allows you to drive other vehicles Third party covered, on the provision that you have permission of the owner. The vehicle is not owned by you and is in a road worthy condition.

As i said already, your original statement is fiction. Read the terms and conditions . This may or may not apply to your policy.

Wanna take an example from 123.ie and their assumptions

123.ie wrote:

Your Car:
is registered in the Republic of Ireland in your name or in the name of your spouse (Spouse means legally married husband/wife or legally recognised Civil Partner) or your common-law spouse.

Can you link me to something to validate your point................ in simple terms of course.

listermint · 29-01-2013 1:48pm

MugMugs wrote: »

Wanna take an example from 123.ie and their assumptions

Can you link me to something to validate your point................ in simple terms of course.

Sorry i dont have my policy on me. But its there, whats more is i think you know its there as im sure youve been around the block with insurers in your years of driving.

Linking to 123 means nothing their policies are rubbish i wouldnt insure with them anyway.

peteb2 · 29-01-2013 1:49pm

listermint wrote: »

Youve contradicted yourself there.

I agree with the third party part, excuse my fire and theft bit.

Statement is still fiction though

Now Listermint, you have told two of us that we have contradicted ourselve so where exactly have I done this?

By driving someone driving a car they do not own via a Driving Other Cars extension they are not insuring the vehicle. So if you think that my statement saying you can't insure something you do not own is incorrect you are wrong.

To clarify: the vehicle is considered the insurable property. The OP does not own the vehicle and therefore does not have any insurable interest so this stops him from insuring it. If he were to have his own policy ,which he does not, and had this extension it would cover his liability to Third Parties only. So he is not insuring any property.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 1:52pm

listermint wrote: »

Sorry i dont have my policy on me. But its there, whats more is i think you know its there as im sure youve been around the block with insurers in your years of driving.

Linking to 123 means nothing their policies are rubbish i wouldnt insure with them anyway.

I'm just supporting what I am saying.

123.ie are a tied agent to Royal and Sun Alliance, the biggest private motor insurer in this country.

We'll do another for you.

Liberty Insurance and their Assumptions.

Liberty Insurance wrote:

▪ The registered owner of the vehicle is the policyholder (proposer).

listermint · 29-01-2013 1:55pm

peteb2 wrote: »

Now Listermint, you have told two of us that we have contradicted ourselve so where exactly have I done this?

By driving someone driving a car they do not own via a Driving Other Cars extension they are not insuring the vehicle. So if you think that my statement saying you can't insure something you do not own is incorrect you are wrong.

To clarify: the vehicle is considered the insurable property. The OP does not own the vehicle and therefore does not have any insurable interest so this stops him from insuring it. If he were to have his own policy ,which he does not, and had this extension it would cover his liability to Third Parties only. So he is not insuring any property.

semantics, maybe we need the OP back to clarify what they mean by insure the vehicle. Do they mean it is legal to drive on the road under their insurance. Then yes this is possible under many policies in this country.

If by insure they mean insure the actual car itself for damage well then no this is not achievable.

I thank you for your second post because your first one was not as clearly worded.

Mugs - http://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-post-160712.pdf Page 14... Enjoy.

Mint Sauce · 29-01-2013 1:59pm

When I brought my last car, I didn't quite own it when I took out the insurance. Told the insurer I was completing purchase of a particular car, had all details make, model, reg, etc etc, told them I was taking ownership on X date, and could I take insurance from X time.

Was told this was fine, was adviced new car would not be insured before X time, and my current car would be no longer insured after same X time.

When went to dealer to finalise, had disks and letter from insurer to show had insurance in place before driving off.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 2:00pm

listermint wrote: »

Mugs - http://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-post-160712.pdf Page 14... Enjoy.

I assume you're taking the piss out of me here? Please tell me you're taking the piss.

AXA Assumptions

Your Car
You or your spouse or partner is the owner or registered owner of the Car

Are you confusing a Third Party extension with Insuring a vehicle ?

listermint · 29-01-2013 2:01pm

MugMugs wrote: »

I assume you're taking the piss out of me here? Please tell me you're taking the piss.

AXA Assumptions

Are you confusing a Third Party extension with Insuring a vehicle ?

I think your taking the piss by not reading my last post on the subject...

The bit about the OP? Do i have to say it again.

peteb2 · 29-01-2013 2:03pm

Semantics? So that is your answer when you are wrong??

You will note from the polic wording provided that is says "This cover does not apply unless it is shown in your schedule under section 1"

So first off you have to have it. AXA don't provide this cover if you are under 25 or if you have a learners permit.

It also goes on to say that it doesnt apply if you regularly use the car or if you have been using it for more than 30 days.

Don't worry though, its all semantics! Of course insurers will pay out when the policy is voided by a fraudulent claim for any damage!

peteb2 · 29-01-2013 2:04pm

And again lets just state this for the record, all these arguments are moot points because if you read the starting thread you will see the OP says he doesn't have an insurance policy.

listermint · 29-01-2013 2:05pm

peteb2 wrote: »

Semantics? So that is your answer when you are wrong??

You will note from the polic wording provided that is says "This cover does not apply unless it is shown in your schedule under section 1"

So first off you have to have it. AXA don't provide this cover if you are under 25 or if you have a learners permit.

It also goes on to say that it doesnt apply if you regularly use the car or if you have been using it for more than 30 days.

Don't worry though, its all semantics! Of course insurers will pay out when the policy is voided by a fraudulent claim for any damage!

The answer the OPs question it would require him to come back and clarify.

I have merely detailed that it is possible for a vehicle to be insurance compliant when it is not your own. Something which yourself and Mugs blanketed that it wasnt.

I also said there was terms and conditions so ive no idea why you felt it was necessary to bring up the age part.

Additionally ive no idea where youve pulled fraudulent claim from ?

listermint · 29-01-2013 2:06pm

peteb2 wrote: »

And again lets just state this for the record, all these arguments are moot points because if you read the starting thread you will see the OP says he doesn't have an insurance policy.

agreed.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 2:10pm

listermint wrote: »

I think your taking the piss by not reading my last post on the subject...

The bit about the OP? Do i have to say it again.

What kind of crap are you talking here? Did you read the OP? Here, I'll simplify it for you.

Daith wrote: »

My brother moved to Oz for a while. Can I get insured on his car without being the owner?

Yes you can as a named driver however you're more than a named driver as he wont be driving the car as you will be the main driver and if your insurer ever finds out about this then you will be in trouble.

Daith wrote: »

I think he still is insured on the car so I could possibly get added as a named driver.

See above

Daith wrote: »

Or can I get my own policy with a different insurance company?

No, because you have NO insurable interest on the vehicle.

djimi · 29-01-2013 2:12pm

listermint wrote: »

semantics, maybe we need the OP back to clarify what they mean by insure the vehicle. Do they mean it is legal to drive on the road under their insurance. Then yes this is possible under many policies in this country.

If by insure they mean insure the actual car itself for damage well then no this is not achievable.

The OP clearly asks can they take out a policy on a car that they do not own. Im not really sure what you need clarified?

To answer the questions:

Take out a policy on the vehicle: no

Get added as named driver: not if you intend to be the principle driver of the vehicle

Drive the car using third party extension: yes if you policy allows for it.

peteb2 · 29-01-2013 2:16pm

listermint wrote: »

The answer the OPs question it would require him to come back and clarify.

I have merely detailed that it is possible for a vehicle to be insurance compliant when it is not your own. Something which yourself and Mugs blanketed that it wasnt.

I also said there was terms and conditions so ive no idea why you felt it was necessary to bring up the age part.

Additionally ive no idea where youve pulled fraudulent claim from ?

You make a large assumption that all policies blanketly include driving other cars - which they dont! Which is why I mentioned the age. The policy wording has to be read in conjuction with a valid policy schedule. You cant read it in isolation and assume you have the cover.

Reading the further conditions of P15 of the document you provided where there is an elegibility criteria for when AXA would not provide cover. OP states his bro is in Oz and he would therefore be using the car for more than 30 days. Anything he states to an insurer would be to the contrary = fraudulent claim.

And just for full disclosure I work in insurance so I'm not pulling this out of my arse.

mitosis · 29-01-2013 2:18pm

The simple solution is to take ownership of the car - give him €50.00 for it - and insure it as your own. When he returns sell it back to him.

Pat Mustard · 29-01-2013 2:18pm

MugMugs is correct when he says that the OP cannot insure the car. This is correct because the OP has no insurable interest in the car.

For instance, I cannot insure the Mona Lisa, as I don't own it.

However, the OP may be able to become insured to drive the car, in various ways.

Subject to correction, I think that it is unlikely that the OP's brother has kept a live policy of insurance in place on the vehicle if he has gone to Australia for some time. If he had, he could arrange to name the OP as a driver on the policy.

OP, if your brother transfers the car to you, you could look for your own policy. You could then give him back his car when he returns from Australia.

29-01-2013 2:20pm

MugMugs wrote: »

But he would be the main driver so it would be the wrong way to go.

Simply put, can you insure something that you don't own?

If reading that question again didn't make it clear for you then this will. No, you can't.

There is no reason that he cannot go down as a named driver once his brothers policy is still active. Once his brother rings up himself and organises it, the whole point of "named driver" is to able to insure yourself in someone else's car.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 2:22pm

Gabrielle Bumpy Azure wrote: »

There is no reason that he cannot go down as a named driver once his brothers policy is still active. Once his brother rings up himself and organises it, the whole point of "named driver" is to able to insure yourself in someone else's car.

Agreed but Insurers aren't stupid and should anything occur and the Insurer establish that the OP was in fact the principle driver of the vehicle and not the Policyholder as they had accepted the risk then the OP could have problems.

djimi · 29-01-2013 2:25pm

Gabrielle Bumpy Azure wrote: »

There is no reason that he cannot go down as a named driver once his brothers policy is still active. Once his brother rings up himself and organises it, the whole point of "named driver" is to able to insure yourself in someone else's car.

Theres nothing to stop him getting added as a named driver to a live policy, but a named driver is not supposed to be the principle driver of the vehicle. The OP may well be perfectly fine to drive that way, but its their choice to make whether or not they want to chance it. If they have an accident and the insurer gets wind of the fact that the policy holder lives in Australia (which they are quite likely to do) then Id imagine it will cause a lot of trouble for the OP.

29-01-2013 2:30pm

MugMugs wrote: »

Agreed but Insurers aren't stupid and should anything occur and the Insurer establish that the OP was in fact the principle driver of the vehicle and not the Policyholder as they had accepted the risk then the OP could have problems.

I dont see how they could go about proving it, even with the op's brother out of the country how can they tell how often he drove the car. As far as I'd be concerend once you are a named driver you are insured to drive the car.

Even in a case where a named driver only drives the car an odd time and the named driver crashes what can the main driver use to defend themselves if accused of the above. I doubt very much its ever an issue, being a name driver is a very common thing and I've never heard hassle over it.

djimi wrote: »

Theres nothing to stop him getting added as a named driver to a live policy, but a named driver is not supposed to be the principle driver of the vehicle. The OP may well be perfectly fine to drive that way, but its their choice to make whether or not they want to chance it. If they have an accident and the insurer gets wind of the fact that the policy holder lives in Australia (which they are quite likely to do) then Id imagine it will cause a lot of trouble for the OP.

Sure he might only drive it a hand full of times. Someone being out of the country just cannot mean a person who is insured under them has to simply stop driving the car.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 2:32pm

Gabrielle Bumpy Azure wrote: »

I dont see how they could go about proving it, even with the op's brother out of the country how can they tell how often he drove the car. As far as I'd be concerend once you are a named driver you are insured to drive the car.

Even in a case where a named driver only drives the car an odd time and the name driver crashes what can the main driver use to defend themselves if accused of the above. I doubt very much its ever an issue, being a name driver is a very common thing and I've never heard hassle over it.

Very easy.

"I'd like to report a claim"

"Okay, are you the Policyholder?"

"No, he's...... gone out"

"Okay, and when will he be back so we can talk to him?"

"ummmmmmm, six months?"

29-01-2013 2:36pm

MugMugs wrote: »

Very easy.

"I'd like to report a claim"

"Okay, are you the Policyholder?"

"No, he's...... gone out"

"Okay, and when will he be back so we can talk to him?"

"ummmmmmm, six months?"

The policy holder could just call up themselves, insurance claims are all done over the phone anyway. A named driver would never be calling up to report a claim on someone else's policy.

djimi · 29-01-2013 2:37pm

Gabrielle Bumpy Azure wrote: »

I dont see how they could go about proving it, even with the op's brother out of the country how can they tell how often he drove the car. As far as I'd be concerend once you are a named driver you are insured to drive the car.

Even in a case where a named driver only drives the car an odd time and the named driver crashes what can the main driver use to defend themselves if accused of the above. I doubt very much its ever an issue, being a name driver is a very common thing and I've never heard hassle over it.

Sure he might only drive it a hand full of times. Someone being out of the country just cannot mean a person who is insured under them has to simply stop driving the car.

If the brother is out of the country and is resident in Australia then its pretty obvious that they are not going to be driving the car, period. Even if the OP were to only take the car out once a month it would still make them the primary driver.

I think the odds would be well stacked against the OP on this one; it would be painfully obvious what they were at. If the brother was living out of the country then he would have cancelled his insurnace on the car. The only reason for not cancelling the insurance would be to allow the named driver to keep using the car. Maybe Im wrong and they might see it differently, but in this case I would not be taking a chance personally; the circumstances of this are very different to Johnny driving his mas car every day as a named driver on her policy.

MugMugs · 29-01-2013 2:38pm

Gabrielle Bumpy Azure wrote: »

The policy holder could just call up themselves, insurance claims are all done over the phone anyway. A named driver would never be calling up to report a claim on someone else's policy.

Insurers do visit accident sites and inspect vehicles. They also request the Policyholder sign the Accident Report Form....

There's a lot of variables involved and I'd never advocate anybody here to commit fraud and or attempt to commit fraud.

Also, as a worker in the industry, we get drivers mothers calling in to report accidents.

Be under no illusions about that one.

smellsfunny · 29-01-2013 2:50pm

You can be a named driver on the car. Its up to yourself if you want to risk it. You won't be caught out unless you are in a crash and probably will still get away with it as its hard for the insurance company to prove. But your brother is in Australia which makes it kind of dodgy.

mitosis · 29-01-2013 2:54pm

smellsfunny wrote: »

You can be a named driver on the car. Its up to yourself if you want to risk it. You won't be caught out unless you are in a crash and probably will still get away with it as its hard for the insurance company to prove. But your brother is in Australia which makes it kind of fraudulent.

Language amended for clarity :pac:

smellsfunny · 29-01-2013 2:59pm

mitosis wrote: »

Language amended for clarity :pac:

Its funny insurance how companies give the same no claims discount as a named driver as a person who has their own insurance these days. :pac:
You'll be grand OP

Daith · 29-01-2013 4:07pm

Thanks all. I might just ring up a few insurance companies to ask. Please note I'm not looking to do anything illegal which is why I asked so not going to "chance" anything.

And I should have stated my brother is only gone for a few months so I guess travel/work which is why he is still insured as he'll be back in June.

Thanks again.

Insurance on car I don't own?

Comments