Driving another car on my insurance

3rdDegree

My father has just announced something that I can't believe and didn't have much success Googling.

My mother's car is "broken down" (clutch gone and she can't manage to drive it). I proposed that my wife drive me out to mother's car, I take her car and drive it home while my wife drives back our car. Since I have 3rd Party insurance to drive other cars, I thought that would be fine.

But my father claims that if my car is on the road and being driven by someone else, I cannot drive another car using my 3rd Party. Is he raving (again)?

Thanks

Atlantic Dawn

You will be covered to drive the other car once it's written on your policy that you can drive other cars. Your own car will be covered by whatever cover your wife has to normally drive it.

whomitconcerns

Your father is correct. Of your wife is driving your car as a named driver, you can not also drive another car at same time. Your policy is only valid on one vehicle at a time.

SleeperService

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Your father is correct. Of your wife is driving your car as a named driver, you can not also drive another car at same time. Your policy is only valid on one vehicle at a time.

So unless you were to confine her to the kitchen whenever you left the house, you could never drive a friends car under third party extension? On the off chance she would use your car?
They should start providing manacles of some sort with these policies, god knows what sort of risks people are taking leaving women folk loose in cars unsupervised!

corktina

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Your father is correct. Of your wife is driving your car as a named driver, you can not also drive another car at same time. Your policy is only valid on one vehicle at a time.

no such clause in any policy I ever looked at. Should anything occur (short of husband and wife crashing into one another) how would they KNOW?

Anan1

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Your father is correct. Of your wife is driving your car as a named driver, you can not also drive another car at same time. Your policy is only valid on one vehicle at a time.

Have you a link to anything confirming this? Because I've yet to see any such thing mentioned on an insurance policy.

visual

Had a similar debate on here no too long ago about someone else driving your car.

Insurance is sold in parts to make up package.

3rd party is insurance on the driver states in policy vehicles you can drive.

F&T and fully comp is on car listed in policy and isn't transfered automatically.

Generally you are covered to drive any vehicle loan to you if your the main driver on policy under 3rd party.

If your named driver on someone else's policy its highly unlikely your covered on any other car other than one in policy.

So you should be covered driving mothers car while your wife drives your car at same time.

I know my policy will allow this. But double check your own policy

oldyouth

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Your father is correct. Of your wife is driving your car as a named driver, you can not also drive another car at same time. Your policy is only valid on one vehicle at a time.

Nonsense

toyotaavensis

oldyouth wrote: »

Nonsense

+1

CiniO

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Your father is correct. Of your wife is driving your car as a named driver, you can not also drive another car at same time. Your policy is only valid on one vehicle at a time.

1. If you really think you are right, please provide even one example of insurance policy stating the above.

2. Even if you are right, and such limitation really exists (which you aren't) - it would be undetectable unless both OP and his wife crashed at exact the same moment.

The_Honeybadger

I think this was stated in an old policy I had, don't know if it's in the current one. As stated above it would be a totally meaningless clause in any case, how would the insurance provider prove the other car was being driven at the time.

As far as I know the third party cover for other cars also only applies if they are privately insured at the time, I.e. you can't drive cars that are off the road. This is a mistake I have seen people make in the past.

kermitpwee

mickeyk wrote: »

As far as I know the third party cover for other cars also only applies if they are privately insured at the time, I.e. you can't drive cars that are off the road. This is a mistake I have seen people make in the past.

Not true, axa cover 3rd party extension once the car is nct'd and taxed

SleeperService

mickeyk wrote: »

I think this was stated in an old policy I had, don't know if it's in the current one. As stated above it would be a totally meaningless clause in any case, how would the insurance provider prove the other car was being driven at the time.

As far as I know the third party cover for other cars also only applies if they are privately insured at the time, I.e. you can't drive cars that are off the road. This is a mistake I have seen people make in the past.

Again, please provide details of a modern policy that has this condition. I dont.think I have ever seen it. In a third-party claim situation (the only situation your third-party extension covers) what benefit would "extra/other" insurance offer anyone in third-party terms?

The_Honeybadger

SleeperService wrote: »

Again, please provide details of a modern policy that has this condition. I dont.think I have ever seen it. In a third-party claim situation (the only situation your third-party extension covers) what benefit would "extra/other" insurance offer anyone in third-party terms?

That was the impression I had, you could be right and I can't be bothered going off to prove different, if it was me and I was unfortunate enough to be involved in an incident though I'd be seriously nervous until my claim is settled. That is the real test of what is covered and what isn't.

djimi

With regards to the other car needing to be insured before third party extension applies, Im fairly certain that one of my first policies stipulated this (were talking 10-12 years ago), but certainly no policy that I have had or have seen in the past few years has required this.

Of course, as with anything in insurance, the only thing that matters is what is written in black and white in your policy, so if in doubt give it a read!

carefull now!

Insurance companies will find any reason they can not too pay out so just bear that in mind, I know of a case that wasn't paid out because a wife with her own policy that includes driving other cars, crashed in her husbands car which she was also a named driver on the policy. The claim was initially taken by the husbands insurance and sent an assessor and where agreeing figures when they found out the wife had her own policy they walked away refusing any liability. The wife's insurance also refused liability because they weren't contacted from the start and repairs had already begun!
No mater what you think your covered for, they will try to not pay out if they can!

corktina

that can easily be solved by reading the policy. I would have thought your own Insurance takes precedence in any claim and I bet the Policy said that

oldyouth

carefull now! wrote: »

Insurance companies will find any reason they can not too pay out so just bear that in mind, I know of a case that wasn't paid out because a wife with her own policy that includes driving other cars, crashed in her husbands car which she was also a named driver on the policy. The claim was initially taken by the husbands insurance and sent an assessor and where agreeing figures when they found out the wife had her own policy they walked away refusing any liability. The wife's insurance also refused liability because they weren't contacted from the start and repairs had already begun!
No mater what you think your covered for, they will try to not pay out if they can!

Standard rules apply to who has the most 'specific' cover when there is dual coverage for an accident.

As for refusing indemnity because repairs were carried out before insurers got to inspect the damage, well..................

timmy4u2

Youvare all referring to the Insurance policy. The insurance policy comprises of the Insurance certificate and the policy document.
The Certificate satisfies the Requirements of the RTA. The Policy document needs to be read with the certificate.
I have never seen a stipulation that the "other" car has to be insured by someone else.
Neither have I seen a stipulation that the "other" car has to be taxed.

All policies are issued on ths basis that the vehicle is roadworthy and that it will be maintained in such a condition.
Nothwithstanding all of that an insurer may include any restrictive endorsement on any policy on an individual basis.
Named drivers may not drive other vehicles but some Insurers may allow it on an individual basis.
As an example Liberty Insurance have the following stipulations

Third Party Extension
Driving other cars

If your certificate of insurance says so, we will also cover you, the policyholder, for your liability to other people while you are driving any other private motor car which you do not own or have not hired or leased, as long as:

The vehicle is not owned by your employer or hired to them under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
You currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
The use of the vehicle is covered in the certificate of insurance;
Cover is not provided by any other insurance;
You have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
The vehicle is in a roadworthy condition; and
You still have your vehicle and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair.
This extension applies while being driven within the territorial limits and only to private passenger vehicles. It does not include:

Vans;
Car-vans;
Jeep-type vehicles with no seats in the back; or
Vans adapted to carry passengers.

The_Honeybadger

A policy I had with Quinn direct in the past definately had the stipulation about third party cover for other privately insured motor cars only. That was some time ago, was my first policy and I read it cover to cover. It's quite possible that it doesn't apply on my current one. Best to check the exact wording and if in doubt check with the insurer directly.

oldyouth

timmy4u2 wrote: »

Youvare all referring to the Insurance policy. The insurance policy comprises of the Insurance certificate and the policy document.

You forgot to include policy schedule, which may contain endorsements that restrict or amend the standard covers offered in the policy document, for any any individual circumstances

timmy4u2

oldyouth wrote: »

You forgot to include policy schedule, which may contain endorsements that restrict or amend the standard covers offered in the policy document, for any any individual circumstances

The schedule is basically the policy document with the aforesaid endorsements that personalise the policy to you and, as in the certificate outline the period of time the policy is in force. All are sesections of the policy document

mathepac

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

You will be covered to drive the other car once it's written on your policy that you can drive other cars. Your own car will be covered by whatever cover your wife has to normally drive it.

Completely inaccurate. The same single-car policy cannot cover two cars being driven on public roads at the same time.

mathepac

corktina wrote: »

no such clause in any policy I ever looked at. Should anything occur (short of husband and wife crashing into one another) how would they KNOW?

That's hardly the point. One of the drivers is not covered by the single-car policy. I think its bad form to encourage people to take risks.

mathepac

CiniO wrote: »

...
2. Even if you are right, and such limitation really exists (which you aren't) - it would be undetectable unless both OP and his wife crashed at exact the same moment.

See my post above. Please give the exact wording in your policy that allows two drivers on a single-car policy to drive a car each at the same time.

Sobanek

CiniO, don't even get into discussion with mathepac. Everytime he visits the Motors forum he causes havoc.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

See my post above. Please give the exact wording in your policy that allows two drivers on a single-car policy to drive a car each at the same time.

Please show the exact wording from ANY policy that prohibits it.

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

Please show the exact wording from ANY policy that prohibits it.

The fact that it's a single car policy prohibits it. Refer to your own single-car policy for confirmation.

mathepac

Sobanek wrote: »

CiniO, don't even get into discussion with mathepac. Everytime he visits the Motors forum he causes havoc.

djimi wrote: »

Please show the exact wording from ANY policy that prohibits it.

It seems to me from the tone of some posts (examples above) above some posters want a fight rather than to help the OP avoid trouble.

OP as a sensible person asking for insight before the event, can I suggest you read your policy and call your insurer (not the broker) for absolute clarity. Do not take the risks suggested as if it goes wrong the loss will be yours. With insurance I always err on the side of caution.

I'll be amazed (and suitably apologetic) if I'm proven wrong.

Scortho

My policy states that the policyholder if they have a full EU licence may also drive, with the permission of the owner, any private motor car that they do not own and have not hired or leased subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

I've read my policy from cover to cover and no where does it state that my car can't be driven at the same time by another insured person.

It does say that my car can't be off the road for a mechanical reason and that the car I use must be in a roadworthy condition.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

The fact that it's a single car policy prohibits it. Refer to your own single-car policy for confirmation.

mathepac wrote: »

It seems to me from the tone of some posts (examples above) above some posters want a fight rather than to help the OP avoid trouble.

OP as a sensible person asking for insight before the event, can I suggest you read your policy and call your insurer (not the broker) for absolute clarity. Do not take the risks suggested as if it goes wrong the loss will be yours. With insurance I always err on the side of caution.

I'll be amazed (and suitably apologetic) if I'm proven wrong.

My own policy states nothing of the sort.

Im not looking for a fight; Im just genuinely curious to see if you can quote from any policy that contains such a clause. I have never heard of a policy having such a stipulation, nor have I ever seen it in any policy that I have held, so Id be interested to know if such a clause exists and which insurers have it in their policies.

mathepac

Scortho wrote: »

... I've read my policy from cover to cover and no where does it state that my car can't be driven at the same time by another insured person. ...

If it's a single-car policy, it won't state that multiple cars can be covered by the policy to be driven at the same time. It's not rocket science, just common-sense. As with most simple contracts, that which is not specifically included, is excluded.

Apart from which of course that is your policy and the question is about OP's.

phormium

My car is broke at the moment and I have the use of another car temporarily which is owned by a family member who is selling it as they have bought a new car, I called in to my insurance company last Wednesday to check the insurance situation. I have a fully comp policy and AXA advised that I was covered to drive the other car provided I didn't own it (which I don't) and my own was parked up (her exact words) while I was driving the other one. This would give the impression that you can only have one car on the road covered by your insurance.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

If it's a single-car policy, it won't state that multiple cars can be covered by the policy to be driven at the same time. It's not rocket science, just common-sense. As with most simple contracts, that which is not specifically included, is excluded.

Apart from which of course that is your policy and the question is about OP's.

Lets say my car was to get nicked while I was driving another car under third party extension; do you think that in that scenario my car would not be covered, given that you feel only one car can be covered by a policy at a time?

To be honest, with something like this, it will be expressely forbidden in a policy if it is the case, and it seems that in most policies it is not expressely forbidden to drive another car while your own car is being driven. If you can find something that shows a policy with such a clause then by all means post it, but Id be surprised if you can.

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

Lets say my car was to get nicked while I was driving another car under third party extension; do you think that in that scenario my car would not be covered, given that you feel only one car can be covered by a policy at a time? ....

If you are concerned about an incident like this then I suggest you might want to start your own thread; if I respond it doesn't help the OP. Apparently, as I suggested already, helping is not your intention.

djimi wrote: »

... To be honest, with something like this, it will be expressely forbidden in a policy if it is the case, and it seems that in most policies it is not expressely forbidden to drive another car while your own car is being driven. If you can find something that shows a policy with such a clause then by all means post it, but Id be surprised if you can.

I have already pointed out the simple, common-sense way single-car insurance policies operate; they insure one car at a time.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

If you are concerned about an incident like this then I suggest you might want to start your own thread; if I respond it doesn't help the OP. Apparently, as I suggested already, helping is not your intention.

I have already pointed out the simple, common-sense way single-car insurance policies operate; they insure one car at a time.

My question is entirely relevant to the thread and to the OP. Can you back up any of what you say with a link to anything at all, or are you going to continue dodging it?

corktina

my policy states what I may do..it says I may drive other cars under certain circumstances and others may drive mine ditto.
It does not say what I may NOT do, i.e. have my car driven by someone else whilst I in turn drive another car.
It says I may do these things, end of.


As per usual people on here are making up their own rules and swearing them to be true whilst providing no proof (because they can't)

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

My question is entirely relevant to the thread and to the OP. Can you back up any of what you say with a link to anything at all, or are you going to continue dodging it?

In your opinion, but not in mine, which is what matters to me. I've already provided all that any reasonably-minded person would expect as adequate evidence - a single-car policy insures one car at a time. Do you wish to rebut this with some other evidence?

dingus12

With the liberty policies. It says within territories. Does that mean you can not drive an Irish registerd car that belongs to someone else in Northern Ireland? And how would you fair out driving some one else's car in Northern Ireland that does not have a policy on it. Ie no disc on the window but you are insured to drive it in the republic. Would the car be insured until you parked it and stepped out of it. There for it would then be an uninsured car in NI then the police would seize it?

mathepac

corktina wrote: »

my policy states what I may do..it says I may drive other cars under certain circumstances and others may drive mine ditto.
It does not say what I may NOT do, i.e. ...

Correct. Anything not explicitly included is excluded. Your policy does not state that you can have two cars insured on it concurrently, therefore you cannot. Simplez

corktina wrote: »

... As per usual people on here are making up their own rules and swearing them to be true whilst providing no proof (because they can't)

I agree.

These posters are easily spotted as they will not refer OP to his own policy or his insurers and their only interest seems to be in encouraging OP to take risks because the odds against detection are slim. This risks voiding the insurance contract.

NUTLEY BOY

As far as the law is concerned is the relevant document not the CERTIFICATE of insurance ? Unless the certificate specifies the scenario about which the OP is concerned then it cannot arise.
I am looking at an RSA certificate. I cannot see anything that could create the scenario that the OP is thinking about.

corktina

mathepac wrote: »

Correct. Anything not explicitly included is excluded. Your policy does not state that you can have two cars insured on it concurrently, therefore you cannot. Simplez
I agree.

These posters are easily spotted as they will not refer OP to his own policy or his insurers and their only interest seems to be in encouraging OP to take risks because the odds against detection are slim. This risks voiding the insurance contract.

that's not what I said at all. My policy doesn't say I may carry my Dog but I can.

mathepac

corktina wrote: »

that's not what I said at all..

What is that you didn't say at all at all.

corktina wrote: »

.... My policy doesn't say I may carry my Dog but I can.

Your policy probably covers you for social, domestic and pleasure purposes; if so, carrying your doggie in the car is explicitly covered, as is carrying your granny or a goldie-fish or even all three.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

Correct. Anything not explicitly included is excluded. Your policy does not state that you can have two cars insured on it concurrently, therefore you cannot. Simplez

I dont have two cars insured on my policy concurrently. I have one car insured on my policy, and I (me personally, not my car) am insured to drive another vehicle on third party only cover. So where you are getting this notion that two cars are insured on the policy is beyond me.

Also, this notion that you seem to have that anything not expressly included in the policy is forbidden is what I am challenging. If it was against the policy for me to drive another car while my own is being driven then I would expect that my policy would expressly state that. It doesnt, therefore it is not an issue.

If you can show me a policy that expressly forbids this then Ill be all ears. If you can show me anything at all that backs up your claims then Im more than happy to be proven wrong. If you cant, then please dont bother coming back with another patronizing reply that has zero substance.

corktina

mathepac wrote: »

What is that you didn't say at all at all.

Your policy probably covers you for social, domestic and pleasure purposes; if so, carrying your doggie in the car is explicitly covered, as is carrying your granny or a goldie-fish or even all three.

yeah right...you believe that if you want to....a few months down the line you'll be arguing the opposite if it suits you.

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

I dont have two cars insured on my policy concurrently. ...

I know, I know. It's a single-car policy so only one car / driver at a time can be covered by it.

Show me where on your policy it states that you and another driver would be covered to drive two cars including your own at the same time. Better still ask your insurers and post the answer you get in the thread. I await with barely suppressed hilarity.

djimi

mathepac wrote: »

I know, I know. It's a single-car policy so only one car / driver at a time can be covered by it.

Show me where on your policy it states that you and another driver would be covered to drive two cars including your own at the same time. Better still ask your insurers and post the answer you get in the thread. I await with barely suppressed hilarity.

I can show you where on my policy I can name a driver to be covered to drive my car on my policy.

I can show you the section that allows me to drive someone elses cars with third party cover.

I can show you where at no point does it state that both of these cannot happen at the same time.

Can you show me anything at all to back up your claims?

CiniO

mathepac wrote: »

In your opinion, but not in mine, which is what matters to me. I've already provided all that any reasonably-minded person would expect as adequate evidence - a single-car policy insures one car at a time. Do you wish to rebut this with some other evidence?

Yes.
I'm with Allianz. Their policy document is available on their website.
Please show me anything in that policy which would suggest it's the "single-car policy".

My policy (together with schedule and insurance certificate) says that people covered to drive my car is me and my wife.
It also says that I (the policy holder) can drive any other car which doesn't belong to me (and few other conditions).
I never says it's single-car policy. It never says that both options can't be used at the same time.

So why you keep stating term "single-car policy" if it's not used in the policies?

mathepac

CiniO wrote: »

... It never says that both options can't be used at the same time. ...

Nowhere will your policy say that both can be used together, thus they can't. What isn't explicitly allowed is dis-allowed.

CiniO wrote: »

... So why you keep stating term "single-car policy" if it's not used in the policies?

Surprising the basic stuff people don't understand.

All private non-commercial policies underwritten in Ireland are single-car policies - one policy per car - unless otherwise explicitly stated in the documentation. Simplez.

In Italy I had all my cars listed on one policy document and my cars were insured for all licence-holders who had my permission to drive.

Sobanek

mathepac wrote: »

All private non-commercial policies underwritten in Ireland are single-car policies - one policy per car - unless otherwise explicitly stated in the documentation. Simplez

Wrong.
Called AXA today.
As a named driver, I'm covered under my parent's policy when I drive another car but that is limited to third party damage only.

Not listed in the policy documentation either. Had to call to confirm.

mathepac

djimi wrote: »

... Can you show me anything at all to back up your claims?

I don't need to, as I said before. My only concern is that the OP isn't placed at risk by the misinformation others are posting here.