Driving other cars..

finnharpsboy

Can anyone tell me why, if i change my occupation from a warehouseman to a fork lift truck driver, driving of other vehicles is removed as standard from the policy?

wonski

finnharpsboy wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why, if i change my occupation from a warehouseman to a fork lift truck driver, driving of other vehicles is removed as standard from the policy?

Are you sure you didn't change it to truck driver?

I know some professional drivers have problems when buying private policies, but never heard of fork lifts being an issue.

finnharpsboy

wonski wrote: »

Are you sure you didn't change it to truck driver?

I know some professional drivers have problems when buying private policies, but never heard of fork lifts being an issue.

no definitely fork lift.... its not all companies either just one or two

wonski

Give them a call and ask because I can't see any logic in this tbh.

I would love to hear their explanation.

Liam McPoyle

finnharpsboy wrote: »

no definitely fork lift.... its not all companies either just one or two

If the forklift is used in a public place then the insurer run the risk of getting caught up in a claim.

For example, say some lunch time you take the forklift off site to go to a shop and you end up hitting someone. The employers insurance may not provide RTA cover (use in a public place) so the responsibity falls back on your insurer under the DoC extension.

Even though your private motor insurance would exclude using machinery or commercial vehicles, in the eyes of the law your insurer will be held liable if no other insurance exists.

wonski

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

If the forklift is used in a public place then the insurer run the risk of getting caught up in a claim.

For example, say some lunch time you take the forklift off site to go to a shop and you end up hitting someone. The employers insurance may not provide RTA cover (use in a public place) so the responsibity falls back on your insurer under the DoC extension.

Even though your private motor insurance would exclude using machinery or commercial vehicles, in the eyes of the law your insurer will be held liable if no other insurance exists.

So you are saying that exclusions in policies are pointless in the eyes of the law?

I don't drive fork lifts for living, but have access to them. If I take one out will my third party cover me to drive them?

Liam McPoyle

wonski wrote: »

So you are saying that exclusions in policies are pointless in the eyes of the law?

I don't drive fork lifts for living, but have access to them. If I take one out will my third party cover me to drive them?

Exclusions exist so that the insurer can pursue you for recovery of anything paid but yes, for all intents and purposes they are useless.

People think an insurer will just decline a claim if someone is acting the maggot. In reality its very difficult for an insurer to decline a third party claim, no matter what the driver at fault was doing.

It will cover you if you crashed into someone as in the third parties damages, the forks itself, injuries to you won't be covered.

coylemj

If you injure someone with a works vehicle, it doesn't really matter if you have a personal policy on your own car, the person injured or whose car you damage won't chase you, they will chase the company which owns the vehicle. In law the vehicle owner is ultimately liable and a company is easier to pursue for damages than an individual who may or may not have a personal policy.

Would someone care to enlighten us as to the basis for the assertion that the OP's insurance would be obliged to pay out if he's driving a borrowed vehicle and doesn't have 'driving other cars' cover? He would be uninsured in the event of a claim and the injured party would have to claim off the MIBI surely?

lapua20grain

As long as you are validated and authorised to drive this machinery in the course of your work day and do not use it without the authorisation of your supervisor then you do not have to inform your insurer. This is covered under your employers insurance, do not drive on public roads unless your employer has cover to do this. If your employer has a car or van for you to drive they will name you as a designated driver on their policy so this will cover you.

Liam McPoyle

coylemj wrote: »

If you injure someone with a works vehicle, it doesn't really matter if you have a personal policy on your own car, the person injured or whose car you damage won't chase you, they will chase the company which owns the vehicle. In law the vehicle owner is ultimately liable and a company is easier to pursue for damages than an individual who may or may not have a personal policy.

Would someone care to enlighten us as to the basis for the assertion that the OP's insurance would be obliged to pay out if he's driving a borrowed vehicle and doesn't have 'driving other cars' cover? He would be uninsured in the event of a claim and the injured party would have to claim off the MIBI surely?

While the likelihood is that the injured party will pursue the employer, the fact remains that there is potential exposure for a motor insurer.

Its not as simple as saying, you don't have DoC therefore your insurer is not liable if you crash while driving someone else's car.

The MIBI can instruct an insurance company to pay the claim as they would be insurer concerned.

A policy is in place that would otherwise have covered the accident ie if they were driving their own car then the accident would be covered so an insurer simply cannot wash their hands of it.

Insurance is not black and white, people need to realise that, there are very few set in stone rules.

wonski

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

While the likelihood is that the injured party will pursue the employer, the fact remains that there is potential exposure for a motor insurer.

Its not as simple as saying, you don't have DoC therefore your insurer is not liable if you crash while driving someone else's car.

The MIBI can instruct an insurance company to pay the claim as they would be insurer concerned.

A policy is in place that would otherwise have covered the accident ie if they were driving their own car then the accident would be covered so an insurer simply cannot wash their hands of it.

Insurance is not black and white, people need to realise that, there are very few set in stone rules.

It is. When I take a company car for a spin it is their policy that covers all damages. There is no grey area, it is pretty much black and white.

My own private car policy is a separate business.

Skatedude

One reason (guessing) is that practices and habits used in fork lift driving is very undesirable for road vehicles.
Main thing that springs to mind is the way forklift drivers often use a steering knob or spinning the wheel one handed, which is common practice. That would be very bad habit as road users should always use two hands shuffling the wheel.
But only guessing here.

CiniO

Skatedude wrote: »

One reason (guessing) is that practices and habits used in fork lift driving is very undesirable for road vehicles.
Main thing that springs to mind is the way forklift drivers often use a steering knob or spinning the wheel one handed, which is common practice. That would be very bad habit as road users should always use two hands shuffling the wheel.
But only guessing here.

While indeed shuffling the wheel is probably better than using a knob or one hand, but in general it's very bad steering practice - it's just too slow to be able to manouver in many scenarios, and it's highly discouraged in most countries (except from UK and Ireland where it's requirement to pass a driving test).

CiniO

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Exclusions exist so that the insurer can pursue you for recovery of anything paid but yes, for all intents and purposes they are useless.

People think an insurer will just decline a claim if someone is acting the maggot. In reality its very difficult for an insurer to decline a third party claim, no matter what the driver at fault was doing.

It will cover you if you crashed into someone as in the third parties damages, the forks itself, injuries to you won't be covered.

That's very interesting.

How does that work in case of someone else (not a named driver) driving a car on which there is insurance policy.
F.e. I have a car and insurance policy on it, I'm the only driver listed on a policy, but let's say I let my neighbour drive my car. What happens if he causes accident and causes damage to third party.
Is my insurer going to pay to third party as I had my car insured, and exclusion of anyone else driving than me, would not be enough for insurer to decline on thrid party claim?

wonski

Skatedude wrote: »

One reason (guessing) is that practices and habits used in fork lift driving is very undesirable for road vehicles.
Main thing that springs to mind is the way forklift drivers often use a steering knob or spinning the wheel one handed, which is common practice. That would be very bad habit as road users should always use two hands shuffling the wheel.
But only guessing here.

How would that even transfer to driving other cars extension? It is OK to do as long as the car belongs to you?

I drove fork lifts and smaller warehouse trucks and they are completely different than cars.

I also cut a grass using lawnmower, but hold it with both hands so should be fine insurance wise

Liam McPoyle

wonski wrote: »

It is. When I take a company car for a spin it is their policy that covers all damages. There is no grey area, it is pretty much black and white.

My own private car policy is a separate business.

That's because there would be RTA cover on the company vehicle, of course it would be covered under their insurance.

I'm talking about when RTA cover is not in place.

Most forklifts would not cover RTA ie use in a public place.

peteb2

CiniO wrote:

How does that work in case of someone else (not a named driver) driving a car on which there is insurance policy. F.e. I have a car and insurance policy on it, I'm the only driver listed on a policy, but let's say I let my neighbour drive my car. What happens if he causes accident and causes damage to third party. Is my insurer going to pay to third party as I had my car insured, and exclusion of anyone else driving than me, would not be enough for insurer to decline on thrid party claim?

Put simply yes they will pay it.

Liam McPoyle

CiniO wrote: »

That's very interesting.

How does that work in case of someone else (not a named driver) driving a car on which there is insurance policy.
F.e. I have a car and insurance policy on it, I'm the only driver listed on a policy, but let's say I let my neighbour drive my car. What happens if he causes accident and causes damage to third party.
Is my insurer going to pay to third party as I had my car insured, and exclusion of anyone else driving than me, would not be enough for insurer to decline on thrid party claim?

If you willingly loaned your car to someone and they crashed it, and they did not have a valid policy themselves then your insurer would be liable to cover the costs for any TP injuries, the damages to your car would be excluded. The insurer would have the right to pursue you for recovery of the outlay as you were in breach of the policy conditions.

If someone stole your car and crashed into someone else then the MIBI would more than likely cover the claim as it would be an uninsured driver and the car was being driven unlawfully.

wonski

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

That's because there would be RTA cover on the company vehicle, of course it would be covered under their insurance.

I'm talking about when RTA cover is not in place.

Most forklifts would not cover RTA ie use in a public place.

My private policy only covers me to drive cars. I still can't see my insurer paying out when I take their forklift for a spin.

What law are you talking about? just curious now.

Liam McPoyle

wonski wrote: »

My private policy only covers me to drive cars. I still can't see my insurer paying out when I take their forklift for a spin.

What law are you talking about? just curious now.

The road traffic act.

The RTA covers all mechanically propelled vehicles from cars, to motorized bicycles to commercial vehicles to forklifts and loaders that are used in a public place.

wonski

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

The road traffic act.

The RTA covers all mechanically propelled vehicles from cars, to motorized bicycles to commercial vehicles to forklifts and loaders that are used in a public place.

Yeah, right

I know what the rta covers.
And I know what my policy does cover.

Let me insure a forklift then we have a case.

grogi

wonski wrote: »

My private policy only covers me to drive cars. I still can't see my insurer paying out when I take their forklift for a spin.

What law are you talking about? just curious now.

By the same logic I could drive a car if I have a house insurance... It just does not sound right.

I also love the phrase "the insurer might pursue you for recovery...". If I know companies, if there is money to be recovered, they will go after it. This one is actually written in stone Taking it further on - if the insurer can recover a claim, they have little incentive to fight it...

Liam McPoyle

wonski wrote: »

Yeah, right

I know what the rta covers.
And I know what my policy does cover.

Let me insure a forklift then we have a case.

You have a vague understanding of what the RTA covers and it's implications.

Your motor insurance excludes drink / drug driving, specifically excludes it.

Do you think if you got into your car and ploughed into someone your insurer would get away from the claim?

Of course they wouldn't.

Just because you breach a policy condition does not mean it voids a third party claim.

I'm not dealing in absolutes, I'm not saying that an accident that occurs while driving a forklift would 100% be covered if no other policy is in place, what I'm saying is that it potentially could.

Liam McPoyle

grogi wrote: »

By the same logic I could drive a car if I have a house insurance... It just does not sound right.

I also love the phrase "the insurer might pursue you for recovery...". If I know companies, if there is money to be recovered, they will go after it. This one is actually written in stone Taking it further on - if the insurer can recover a claim, they have little incentive to fight it...

How in blue blazes does it sound like you could drive a car under house insurance based on what I said, seriously, I'm curious how you could stretch to that.

grogi

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

How in blue blazes does it sound like you could drive a car under house insurance based on what I said, seriously, I'm curious how you could stretch to that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm exaggerating on purpose here...

Apparently for any motor insurance, the insurer is liable for motor related claims related to the same vehicle. Exclusions or not, legal or not (a.k.a. unaccompanied learners drivers) - it seems they are (or to put it in your words - they might be liable, which is the same thing honestly).

If the freedom to seek reimbursement from the insurer is so vast, why then not just any insurance?!

Liam McPoyle

grogi wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - I'm exaggerating on purpose here...

Apparently for any motor insurance, the insurer is liable for motor related claims related to the same vehicle. Exclusions or not, legal or not (a.k.a. unaccompanied learners drivers) - it seems they are (or to put it in your words - they might be liable, which is the same thing honestly).

If the freedom to seek reimbursement from the insurer is so vast, why then not just any insurance?!

Because a motor policy covers a mechanically propelled vehicle, their use is governed by the RTA.

A house policy or any other non motor policy does not cover the use of mechanically propelled vehicles.

Some county councils for example insist that anyone using a ride on mower for public works such as the common areas / grass in housing estates have RTA cover. As ridiculous as that is, something that can go a max of 2 or 3 mph, it still needs rta cover because its being used in a public place.

coylemj

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Because a motor policy covers a mechanically propelled vehicle, their use is governed by the RTA.

I don't know why you're quoting the Road Traffic Act....where does the RTA state that if I have a policy on my own car which covers me to drive that car only, I borrow an uninsured car from my neighbour and have a crash that my own insurance policy has to pay out?

Say a young lad buys a Nissan Micra, insures it in his own name, then gets his ma to buy a performance car, what you're saying is that he can drive that car safe in the knowledge that if there is a crash, his own policy will pay out

The RTA simply says that the driving of a car in a public place has to be covered by an insurance policy or an exempted person, the details you're quoting are not in the RTA.

Liam McPoyle

coylemj wrote: »

I don't know why you're quoting the Road Traffic Act....where does the RTA state that if I have a policy on my own car which covers me to drive that car only, I borrow an uninsured car from my neighbour and have a crash that my own insurance policy has to pay out?

Say a young lad buys a Nissan Micra, insures it in his own name, then gets his ma to buy a performance car, what you're saying is that he can drive that car safe in the knowledge that if there is a crash, his own policy will pay out

The RTA simply says that the driving of a car in a public place has to be covered by an insurance policy or an exempted person, the details you're quoting are not in the RTA.

The RTA states that all mechanically propelled vehicles have to have to be covered while being used in a public place so as to protect third parties.

If I have a policy for a car and crash into a third party while driving a vehicle that has no insurance policy in place then my insurer can be held liable for paying the third party claim.

I'm on mobile but will dig out the exact wording later on when I get to a laptop.

In the scenario above with the young driver then his insurer could be held accountable as insurer concerned and could be instructed by the MIBI to pay a claim. The insurer would then have the right to pursue the young driver for recovery of the outlay.

cplwhisper

RTA'61 section 56 (1) a & b

Too large to probably copy here

coylemj

cplwhisper wrote: »

RTA'61 section 56 (1) a & b

Too large to probably copy here

That's the section which says you have to have insurance.....

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56

where does it say that your insurance is liable to pay for damages arising out of your use of a car not stated as covered by your policy e.g. a borrowed car when you don't have 'driving other cars' cover?

cplwhisper

The policy book along with your schedule is simply easiest way to know who lifting tab for claim.

Some insurers will only cover DOC on cars already covered

Some don't ask if insured or not but driver is responsible to verify vehicle is roadworthy

coylemj

cplwhisper wrote: »

The policy book along with your schedule is simply easiest way to know who lifting tab for claim.

We know all that.

What is being discussed here is the assertion that once you have a motor policy for your own car, your insurance company will be forced to pay out to cover an accident you have in any vehicle, even if for example you work in a warehouse, take the forklift out for a spin on the public road and have a crash. All regardless of whether you have 'driving other cars' cover or not.

Saul says it's in the RTA, I say show me where it says so. Still waiting.

Liam McPoyle

coylemj wrote: »

We know all that.

What is being discussed here is the assertion that once you have a motor policy for your own car, your insurance company will be forced to pay out to cover an accident you have in any vehicle, even if for example you work in a warehouse, take the forklift out for a spin on the public road and have a crash. All regardless of whether you have 'driving other cars' cover or not.

Saul says it's in the RTA, I say show me where it says so. Still waiting.

Ehhh, I didn't say will, I said could potentially be made pay, there is a big difference.

The topic was part of the MDI syllabus for the exam I sat in May.

I will have to dig through my notes to find the exact section I'm referring to but I've been busy trying to study for the next exam this November so that's taking precedence. When I have time, hopefully later on today, I will post in more detail.

cplwhisper

Don't mention 'them' exams... All good fun until iii comes a knocking...

coylemj

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Ehhh, I didn't say will, I said could potentially be made pay, there is a big difference.

You said they would be legally liable, which in practice means they will pay. See your earlier statements which seem pretty clear cut on the subject .....

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Even though your private motor insurance would exclude using machinery or commercial vehicles, in the eyes of the law your insurer will be held liable if no other insurance exists.

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

If you willingly loaned your car to someone and they crashed it, and they did not have a valid policy themselves then your insurer would be liable to cover the costs for any TP injuries

Consolidating those two statements..... what you are saying is that as long as I have a motor insurance policy in my name and covering my car, it means that (1) I am covered to drive any other car, regardless of whether my policy says I have driving other cars or not and (2) I can let anybody drive my car and they are covered.

By 'covered', I mean that the insurance company is liable which means that that anyone driving my car own satisfies the requirements of S.56 of the RTA, if (as you claim), my insurance is liable in all cases ........

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time

Which in turn means that I can lend my car to a 17 year old with a learner permit and he is covered to drive it.

Liam McPoyle

See Page 6, Paragraph 4, "Where there is a policy"

In those cases where it is known to the claimant, or those acting on his behalf, that there was at the time the accident occurred an approved policy of insurance purporting to cover the driving of the vehicle, the insurer who issued the policy should be notified.

The claim will then be handled in the usual way even though the insurer may be in a position to repudiate liability under the policy for the reason that its conditions have been breached or that it was obtained by improper methods.

The insurer will regard the policy as effective so far as the claimant is concerned, but without prejudice to any rights which the insurer may have against the policy holder.

It must however be emphasised that there is nothing in the scheme affecting any obligations imposed by a policy holder by his policy.

Policy holders are not released from their contractual obligations to their insurers although the scheme protects third party claimants from the consequences of failure to observe them.

The key pieces are

The claim will then be handled in the usual way even though the insurer may be in a position to repudiate liability under the policy for the reason that its conditions have been breached

Driving something you shouldn't be driving is a breach of your policy conditions.

The insurer will regard the policy as effective so far as the claimant is concerned, but without prejudice to any rights which the insurer may have against the policy holder.

In plain English the third party claim will have to be dealt with.


Granted, its not clear cut saying "all third party damages are covered no matter what" however not many legal documents or policy wordings are clear cut.

There is an element of interpretation involved.

So to re-iterate what I was saying, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that if someone that holds a car insurance policy crashes a forklift or other vehicle they are not insured to drive, and no other policy of insurance exists to cover the damages caused, that the MIBI may instruct the insurer of the car to cover the costs of the claim.

Liam McPoyle

coylemj wrote: »

You said they would be legally liable, which in practice means they will pay. See your earlier statements which seem pretty clear cut on the subject .....





Consolidating those two statements..... what you are saying is that as long as I have a motor insurance policy in my name and covering my car, it means that (1) I am covered to drive any other car, regardless of whether my policy says I have driving other cars or not and (2) I can let anybody drive my car and they are covered.

By 'covered', I mean that the insurance company is liable which means that that anyone driving my car own satisfies the requirements of S.56 of the RTA, if (as you claim), my insurance is liable in all cases ........

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time

Which in turn means that I can lend my car to a 17 year old with a learner permit and he is covered to drive it.

If you willingly give your car to someone and they crash it your insurer will be liable for the third party damages.

Your insurer will then have the right to seek recovery from you personally because you breached your policy conditions by allowing someone to drive it that was not covered by the policy.

Third party injuries will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS BE COVERED.

The only thing off the top of my head that I can think of where third party injuries are excluded is where a passenger is injured in a car that was stolen and they (the passenger) knew it was stolen.

However every other third party ie non passengers, will be covered.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Saul, the text you quoted says "approved policy of insurance purporting to cover THE vehicle", not any vehicle

Liam McPoyle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Saul, the text you quoted says "approved policy of insurance purporting to cover THE vehicle", not any vehicle

It relates to third party liability in the event of a policy breach.

Drunk driving is a policy breach and TP claims would be paid.

Using the car as a hackney is a policy breach and TP claims would be paid.

Not having the vehicle in a road worthy condition is a policy breach and TP claims would be paid.

Driving something that you should not be driving ie that is not covered under DoC is a policy breach and TP claims could, couldbe liable to be paid by the insurer under instruction from the MIBI.

As I said, it is open to interpretation and when it comes to insurance there is very little set in stone when it comes to TP liability other than the injured party will always have to be compensated.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Yeah, but you're arguing that a person's insurer could be brought in as insurer concerned for driving another vehicle not covered by the policy. Therefore, the existence or lack of DOC cover is irrelevant in you example.

BTW, just post your opinion, no need to shout at me using large fonts.

Liam McPoyle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Yeah, but you're arguing that a person's insurer could be brought in as insurer concerned for driving another vehicle not covered by the policy. Therefore, the existence or lack of DOC cover is irrelevant in you example.

BTW, just post your opinion, no need to shout at me using large fonts.

It seems that sometimes I need to spell out and emphasise my points when answering questions because people either dont understand or simply ignore / overlook what it is Im saying.

I used DoC in my last post because that is what the op was in relation to but yes, it is moot if DoC is operative or not because an insurer could be on the hook regardless.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

It seems that sometimes I need to spell out and emphasise my points when answering questions because people either dont understand or simply ignore / overlook what it is Im saying.

I used DoC in my last post because that is what the op was in relation to but yes, it is moot if DoC is operative or not because an insurer could be on the hook regardless.

Well, I only made one post in this thread and you chose to shout at me. I had chosen to 'ignore' what you were saying because it was you who derailed the topic by giving incorrect opinion that DOC was being withheld because of the possibility of the 'insurer concerned' exposure.

The existence, or lack of, DOC cover has nothing to do with involving an insurer as insurer concerned and therefore not the reason a forklift driver did not get the extension

Liam McPoyle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Well, I only made one post in this thread and you chose to shout at me. I had chosen to 'ignore' what you were saying because it was you who derailed the topic by giving incorrect opinion that DOC was being withheld because of the possibility of the 'insurer concerned' exposure.

The existence, or lack of, DOC cover has nothing to do with involving an insurer as insurer concerned and therefore not the reason a forklift driver did not get the extension

Do you have an opinion to offer as to why he wasn't offered it by some companies instead of just telling me I'm wrong?

I gave my opinion as to potentially why it was excluded.

Its all well and good telling someone they are wrong but if you don't qualify it then it's just hot air tbh.

Sue Pa Key Pa

I don't know why just one or two individual insurers refused driving of other cars for a forklift driver. However, I very much suspect their quotation software is programmed to take this action when the word 'driver' appears in an occupation. This would be important if your occupation was limousine driver, taxi driver, takeaway driver etc because an accident on the day job could pull in your private policy to share a loss. Unfortunately, occupations such as forklift driver, train driver etc may fall foul of that system

Liam McPoyle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I don't know why just one or two individual insurers refused driving of other cars for a forklift driver. However, I very much suspect their quotation software is programmed to take this action when the word 'driver' appears in an occupation. This would be important if your occupation was limousine driver, taxi driver, takeaway driver etc because an accident on the day job could pull in your private policy to share a loss. Unfortunately, occupations such as forklift driver, train driver etc may fall foul of that system

Sorry I'm a bit confused.

If someones occupation is a limo driver or a taxi driver then one would reasonably assume that the vehicle they are insuring is not a limo or a taxi, both vehicle types would be auto declines for all but a handful of insurers.

Presuming you mean that DoC would be excluded because they are employed as a limo or taxi driver and said limo or taxi is covered by their employer, why would DoC be excluded on their own personal policy?

You told me I was wrong with my opinion as to why DoC was excluded for a forklift driver but you seem to be saying that that is the exact reason why it would be excluded for a limo or taxi driver ie that the insureds personal policy could be dragged into a claim which occurred while carrying out their profession.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Sorry I'm a bit confused.

If someones occupation is a limo driver or a taxi driver then one would reasonably assume that the vehicle they are insuring is not a limo or a taxi, both vehicle types would be auto declines for all but a handful of insurers.

Presuming you mean that DoC would be excluded because they are employed as a limo or taxi driver and said limo or taxi is covered by their employer, why would DoC be excluded on their own personal policy?

You told me I was wrong with my opinion as to why DoC was excluded for a forklift driver but you seem to be saying that that is the exact reason why it would be excluded for a limo or taxi driver ie that the insureds personal policy could be dragged into a claim which occurred while carrying out their profession.

Right, I'll try and simplify it for you.

If you are a limo driver by day, in a vehicle your boss provides for you, your own insurer for your private car will be reluctant to give you driving of other cars.

Let's just say you're driving the limo (registered as a private vehicle) and you crash in to a wall injuring 3rd parties. If you have driving of other cars on your own private policy (for the car parked in your driveway at the time), it may be called in to share the loss. Now that's a fact.

I then said that forklift driver & train driver (bold for emphasis, not shouting) fell foul of the insurer's quotation software which incorrectly identified them as a risk for granting driving of other cars cover

Liam McPoyle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Right, I'll try and simplify it for you.

If you are a limo driver by day, in a vehicle your boss provides for you, your own insurer for your private car will be reluctant to give you driving of other cars.

Let's just say you're driving the limo (registered as a private vehicle) and you crash in to a wall injuring 3rd parties. If you have driving of other cars on your own private policy (for the car parked in your driveway at the time), it may be called in to share the loss. Now that's a fact.

I then said that forklift driver & train driver (bold for emphasis, not shouting) fell foul of the insurer's quotation software which incorrectly identified them as a risk for granting driving of other cars cover

Taxis are classified as PSV's and not private motor vehicles. They are insured accordingly and afaik there is a particular tax band for PSV's too.

Your DoC on a private motor policy covers you to drive other private motor vehicles. <- emphasis

So using your argument to my original hypothesis, because a taxi is not a private motor vehicle, your insurer would not get pulled into a claim resulting from the use of a PSV, under a private motor policy.

But you then say in the quoted post above that a claim involving a non private vehicle ie a taxi could get pulled into a claim.

You have tried to make your point fit by saying "a limo registered as a private vehicle" but a vehicle is either a PSV and registered as such or it is a private vehicle and registered as such. You cannot make up rules to try and fit your argument.

If a vehicle is registered privately it is a private motor vehicle.

If a vehicle is registered as a passenger service vehicle it is a PSV.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Taxis are classified as PSV's and not private motor vehicles. They are insured accordingly and afaik there is a particular tax band for PSV's too.

Your DoC on a private motor policy covers you to drive other private motor vehicles. <- emphasis

So using your argument to my original hypothesis, because a taxi is not a private motor vehicle, your insurer would not get pulled into a claim resulting from the use of a PSV, under a private motor policy.

But you then say in the quoted post above that a claim involving a non private vehicle ie a taxi could get pulled into a claim.

You have tried to make your point fit by saying "a limo registered as a private vehicle" but a vehicle is either a PSV and registered as such or it is a private vehicle and registered as such. You cannot make up rules to try and fit your argument.

If a vehicle is registered privately it is a private motor vehicle.

If a vehicle is registered as a passenger service vehicle it is a PSV.

Right, in fairness, I should have explained it better. The extension is driving of other cars. I did use the word 'private' when I shouldn't have. A standard taxi is a car, a limo is a car, the extension applies to those vehicles, regardless of their tax classification or PSV standing

Liam McPoyle

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Right, in fairness, I should have explained it better. The extension is driving of other cars. I did use the word 'private' when I shouldn't have. A standard taxi is a car, a limo is a car, the extension applies to those vehicles, regardless of their tax classification or PSV standing

They are not private vehicles though.

See attached the page from Aviva's policy definition of car.

"Any vehicle built mainly for carrying passengers and taxed for private use only"

I'd be pretty confident that every other insurer would have the same kind of wording as to what constitutes a car when it comes to a private motor insurance policy.