Insurance query

micks_address

Hi folks,
If I have comprehensive car insurance on my own car would I be insured to drive another car? The car on question has no insurance.. Can't talk to insurance company till tomorrow morning.

I may have dreamt this up but if you have comprehensive insurance you can drive another car but would only be covered 3rd party?
Cheers
Mick

CiniO

micks_address wrote: »

Hi folks,
If I have comprehensive car insurance on my own car would I be insured to drive another car? The car on question has no insurance.. Can't talk to insurance company till tomorrow morning.

I may have dreamt this up but if you have comprehensive insurance you can drive another car but would only be covered 3rd party?
Cheers
Mick

It has nothing to do with if insurance is comprehensive or not.

Just some policies have it as an option, some don't.
Have a look at your insurance certificate, and read what it says in part - vehicles covered.
You'll have your answer.

Liam McPoyle

micks_address wrote: »

Hi folks,
If I have comprehensive car insurance on my own car would I be insured to drive another car? The car on question has no insurance.. Can't talk to insurance company till tomorrow morning.

I may have dreamt this up but if you have comprehensive insurance you can drive another car but would only be covered 3rd party?
Cheers
Mick

Most insurers automatically give driving of other cars to people over 25 provided the car is similar / lesser rated to the vehicle on cover and that you don't own the other car.

Its also generally on a third party only basis though there are a couple of companies that give comprehensive cover for driving other cars.

micks_address

Business Cat wrote: »

Most insurers automatically give driving of other cars to people over 25 provided the car is similar / lesser rated to the vehicle on cover and that you don't own the other car.

Its also generally on a third party only basis though there are a couple of companies that give comprehensive cover for driving other cars.

Well it's a slightly complicated case.. My wife noticed this morning the insurance on her jazz is out by two weeks.. Can't find any reminder letters from the insurance company just a renewal invitation from insurance company back in August.. I had assumed incorrectly that the policy was being paid on monthly direct debit and would auto renew.

So the conundrum is she's a drive away from home and worried about driving her car home in case she's not insured. She is insured on my civic and it's fully comprehensive..

I'll be onto the insurance company in the morning to get it sorted.

If she was to drive and be stopped etc would my cars insurance cover her?

Sounds like probably not as the car tax and registration is in my name I think.

Cheers
Mick

micks_address

micks_address wrote: »

Well it's a slightly complicated case.. My wife noticed this morning the insurance on her jazz is out by two weeks.. Can't find any reminder letters from the insurance company just a renewal invitation from insurance company back in August.. I had assumed incorrectly that the policy was being paid on monthly direct debit and would auto renew.

So the conundrum is she's a drive away from home and worried about driving her car home in case she's not insured. She is insured on my civic and it's fully comprehensive..

I'll be onto the insurance company in the morning to get it sorted.

If she was to drive and be stopped etc would my cars insurance cover her?

Sounds like probably not as the car tax and registration is in my name I think.

Cheers
Mick

Actually I suppose she doesn't own the car so maybe ok?

Stheno

micks_address wrote: »

Actually I suppose she doesn't own the car so maybe ok?

Driving other cars usually excludes those owned by a spouse iirc

CiniO

micks_address wrote: »

Well it's a slightly complicated case.. My wife noticed this morning the insurance on her jazz is out by two weeks.. Can't find any reminder letters from the insurance company just a renewal invitation from insurance company back in August.. I had assumed incorrectly that the policy was being paid on monthly direct debit and would auto renew.

So the conundrum is she's a drive away from home and worried about driving her car home in case she's not insured. She is insured on my civic and it's fully comprehensive..

I'll be onto the insurance company in the morning to get it sorted.

If she was to drive and be stopped etc would my cars insurance cover her?

Sounds like probably not as the car tax and registration is in my name I think.

Cheers
Mick

If she is insured on your civic as named driver, there's no chance this would cover her to drive other cars.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Also a clause of the driving of other cars is the other car must have all the valid documents up to date such as NCT, tax and insurance.

You may very well have the option to drive other cars but not an uninsured one. jo matter what It's an uninsured vehicle

bazz26

It's impossible to give the OP an answer on this when the OP hasn't established who is the registered owner of the car or who is the policy holder is. OP until you establish these facts and verify with your insurance company, your wife would be advised not to drive the car as it's very possible she is not insured.

Third party extension only covers the driving of other cars that you don't own. Don't think it includes spouses as otherwise married couples with 2 cars would just take out one policy and drive the other car on the third party extension policy of the first car.

micks_address

bazz26 wrote: »

It's impossible to give the OP an answer on this when the OP hasn't established who is the registered owner of the car or who is the policy holder is. OP until you establish these facts and verify with your insurance company, your wife would be advised not to drive the car as it's very possible she is not insured.

Third party extension only covers the driving of other cars that you don't own. Don't think it includes spouses as otherwise married couples with 2 cars would just take out one policy and drive the other car on the third party extension policy of the first car.

Parked till tomorrow until I can talk to insurance company... Mod feel free to close

FortySeven

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Also a clause of the driving of other cars is the other car must have all the valid documents up to date such as NCT, tax and insurance.

You may very well have the option to drive other cars but not an uninsured one. jo matter what It's an uninsured vehicle

There is no requirement for the other car to be insured. This is a common misconception.

GM228

As already stated driving of other cars is usually third party basis, it must not be owned by you and it must have NCT and tax.

Also driving of other cars usually only applies to the main driver only and not named drivers.

GM228

FortySeven

GM228 wrote: »

As already stated driving of other cars is usually third party basis, it must not be owned by you and it must have it's own valid insurance, NCT and tax.

Also driving of other cars usually applies to the main driver only and not named drivers.

GM228

The car does not need insurance. No Irish provider requires this. YOU are insured, not the car.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

FortySeven wrote: »

There is no requirement for the other car to be insured. This is a common misconception.

For the car to be road legal it has to have its own insurance. An extension of another policy won't cover it if it hasn't got its own.

GM228

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

For the car to be road legal it has to have its own insurance. An extension of another policy won't cover it if it hasn't got its own.

Fortyseven is correct, my mistake!

No the car is insured under your insurance and therefore it does not need insurance of it's own!

GM228

FortySeven

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

For the car to be road legal it has to have its own insurance. An extension of another policy won't cover it if it hasn't got its own.

Absolutely wrong.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

FortySeven wrote: »

Absolutely wrong.

So you're telling me i can drive a car that is only taxed and nctd that doesn't belong to me and when i go through a checkpoint with no insurance cert for that vehicle it'll be fine ?

I don't think so lad.

FortySeven

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

So you're telling me i can drive a car that is only taxed and nctd that doesn't belong to me and when i go through a checkpoint with no insurance cert for that vehicle it'll be fine ?

I don't think so lad.

What you think is not relevant. This is fact and yes, you would be perfectly legal doing just that. Just as I was driving my daughters car a few weeks ago when I got pulled over. She hasn't passed her test yet, car is not insured.

As I said, it is the DRIVER who is insured, not the car.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

FortySeven wrote: »

What you think is not relevant. This is fact and yes, you would be perfectly legal doing just that. Just as I was driving my daughters car a few weeks ago when I got pulled over. She hasn't passed her test yet, car is not insured.

As I said, it is the DRIVER who is insured, not the car.

Its not what i think, it's what i know.

But sure dont mind me, after all i did only work for an insurance company with many other underwriters and this was a common think that came up which I've gotten plenty of clarification myself.

But sure look, not my car so I'm not gonne be losing sleep over this.

FortySeven

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Its not what i think, it's what i know.

But sure dont mind me, after all i did work for an insurance company with many other underwriters and this was a common think that came up which I've gotten plenty of clarification on myself.

But sure look, not my car so I'm not gonne be losing sleep over this.

You are talking out of your arse. This is common knowledge.

quadrifoglio verde

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

So you're telling me i can drive a car that is only taxed and nctd that doesn't belong to me and when i go through a checkpoint with no insurance cert for that vehicle it'll be fine ?

I don't think so lad.

It is. You show the guard a copy of the log book not in your name and your insurance cert.

There is something about parking wardens though and needed a valid insurance disk to park it in public but as for driving, third party extension will cover you. My own insurance doesn't require the car in question to be taxed

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Like i said im not fussed, i know what i know and if what you guys are saying is true then theres plenty of insurance fraud to be had. But it isn't because thats not how it works.

A vehicle cannot be operated on a public road without a valid insurance certificate relating to that vehicle unless the insurance has been transferred.

What the OP could do in his case today is call his insurance company and do a temporary subtitution of insurance from his own car to the wifes and that would cover it no problems at all then.

GM228

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Its not what i think, it's what i know.

But sure dont mind me, after all i did only work for an insurance company with many other underwriters and this was a common think that came up which I've gotten plenty of clarification myself.

But sure look, not my car so I'm not gonne be losing sleep over this.

I'm sorry but you are wrong, however the problem is you are only insured to drive the car, the moment you park or get out of the vehicle then it is legally uninsured.

The law requires the person behind the wheel to have valid insurance, nothing more and any insurance company who states that the other car must have insurance is chancing their arm so as not to pay out (unless of course it's a specific requirement in their policy).

With regards to a parking warden, they can only issue a fine for tax, not insurance.

GM228

micks_address

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Like i said im not fussed, i know what i know and if what you guys are saying is true then theres plenty of insurance fraud to be had. But it isn't because thats not how it works.

A vehicle cannot be operated on a public road without a valid insurance certificate relating to that vehicle unless the insurance has been transferred.

What the OP could do in his case today is call his insurance company and do a temporary subtitution of insurance from his own car to the wifes and that would cover it no problems at all then.

He could if his insurance company took calls on Sunday

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

micks_address wrote: »

He could if his insurance company took calls on Sunday

Go through the claims number

Often done it myself

micks_address

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Go through the claims number

Often done it myself

Claims handled by rac in UK they couldn't help...

GM228

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

My own insurance doesn't require the car in question to be taxed

I assume you mean insured, whilst insurance is not required (unless specified in policy), tax is required!

GM228

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

GM228 wrote: »

I assume you mean insured, whilst insurance is not required (unless specified in policy), tax is required!

GM228

Most policies require the car to be in a roadworty condition.

Now what's the definition of that i wonder

FortySeven

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Most policies require the car to be in a roadworty condition.

Now what's the definition of that i wonder

You are wrong. Either come up with something better than your 'I uzed ta wurk in insurance wiv underriters an whatnot' or stop posting misleading information. Show me one policy document where it says car must be insured. They are all available to view online. We had this very thread not a week ago and it was proven.

quadrifoglio verde

GM228 wrote: »

I assume you mean insured, whilst insurance is not required (unless specified in policy), tax is required!

GM228

Nope the car in question doesn't need to have tax on it for me to be covered third party, obviously if stopped at a check point, it's a case of the car being lifted for no tax but the consequences of driving with no tax are a lot less than the consequences of driving with no insurance

coylemj

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

A vehicle cannot be operated on a public road without a valid insurance certificate relating to that vehicle unless the insurance has been transferred.

You made that up didn't you? As others have said, it's the driver's use of the car that needs to be covered by a policy of insurance i.e. it's not the car that is covered, it's the driver that requires the cover and for a car being driven by someone other than the owner, that cover can be supplied either by the car's policy or the driver's policy.

The Ts & Cs on most Irish policies says that if a policyholder with 'driving other cars' cover borrows a car and there is a third party claim, the driver's own policy will only pay out if there is no cover on the car's own policy - this is an explicit recognition that I can borrow a car which has no policy and if there is a third party claim, my policy will pay out.

No Irish insurance company includes the condition that for cover under the 'driving other cars' clause that the car being driven has a policy of it's own.

GM228

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Nope the car in question doesn't need to have tax on it for me to be covered third party, obviously if stopped at a check point, it's a case of the car being lifted for no tax but the consequences of driving with no tax are a lot less than the consequences of driving with no insurance

I noticed on a policy I had years ago with Quinn that tax was mentioned IIRC, but it was in relation to the insured car rather than any other cars.

Must check out current policies and see if it has been mentioned in them, but I don't actually think I've seen it since my Quinn policy the more I think of it!

GM228

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

I noticed on a policy I had years ago with Quinn that tax was mentioned IIRC, but it was in relation to the insured car rather than any other cars.

Must check out current policies and see if it has been mentioned in them, but I don't actually think I've seen it since my Quinn policy the more I think of it!

GM228

It's come to light during this type of discussion that over the years some insurance companies attempt to impose this type of condition like that the car must have a current tax disc, only for it to disappear the following year. These conditions are basically illegal since there is a restricted list of conditions that insurance companies can fall back on to deny a third party claim, the most obvious one being that the driver has been disqualified.

They might attempt to weasel out of paying for accidental damage on a fully comp. policy where the car owner crashed into a wall and nobody else was involved but no way could the lack of a current tax disc let them deny a third party claim. Even the requirement to have a current NCT cert. is debatable, current thinking says that the car would need to be dangerously defective and/or unroadworthy i.e. the simple lack of a current cert. would not invalidate the cover.

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

It's come to light during this type of discussion that over the years some insurance companies attempt to impose this type of condition like that the car must have a current tax disc, only for it to disappear the following year. These conditions are basically illegal since there is a restricted list of conditions that insurance companies can fall back on to deny a third party claim, the most obvious one being that the driver has been disqualified.

They might attempt to weasel out of paying for accidental damage on a fully comp. policy where the car owner crashed into a wall and nobody else was involved but no way could the lack of a current tax disc let them deny a third party claim. Even the requirement to have a current NCT cert. is debatable, current thinking says that the car would need to be dangerously defective and/or unroadworthy i.e. the simple lack of a current cert. would not invalidate the cover.

I believe that these fall backs are only an issue if not already stated in the terms and then are used in an attempt to deny payment, however IF they stated in their terms that you say had to have a tax disc then they can legally fall back on that.

By taking out the insurance you have accepted their T&Cs (who mind you ever actually reads the small print) and formed a contract under law. If it came to a court case a judge would not see in your favour as it's already a condition in the contract. If it isn't in the contract then you have a case.

With regards to the NCT unfortunately a car is not legally roadworthy without it and that's all they need to fall back on, problem with that is I could get my NCT tomorrow-woo hoo my car is roadworthy, but driving out the gate I hit a pothole and do major damage to the car, car isn't roadworthy, but not to worry I have a cert here saying it is roadworthy until November 2017 so it's roadworthy!

There are plenty of cars without a valid NCT which are roadworthy and plenty with an NCT which arn't!

Point is a lot can happen in two years and the NCT cert means sweet feck all except that I paid a few bob to the government and my car happened to be roadworthy at the time, and here's the receipt in green in my window!

GM228