3rd party extension

NeilMcGrane

Hi,

I've recently taken out a first-time policy with Liberty insurance and the certificate of insurance states;

---

Vehicles or classes of vehicles, the use of which is covered:

[Vehicle Registration]

"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 under a hire purchase or lease agreement subject to the terms and conditions of the policy".

---

I'm 21 and only have my full licence since March this year. Does this confirm that I can drive other cars, with owner's permission, once they have an insurance policy of their own?

The reason I want to make sure is that many other insurers only offer this to customers that are 25 or over, let alone a 21 year old with their full licence only a few months.

Thanks!

CiniO

You can.
And also from what you quoted, it doesn't look like there's a requirement for other vehicle to be insured by its owner.

Cows Go µ

CiniO wrote: »

You can.
And also from what you quoted, it doesn't look like there's a requirement for other vehicle to be insured by its owner.

Well it says subject to the terms and conditions of the policy so it might have said it there however it doesn't for Liberty. A quick google gives the conditions:

1. the vehicle is not owned by your
employer or hired to them under a
hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2. you currently hold a full European
Union (EU) licence;
3. the use of the vehicle is covered in the
certificate of insurance;
4. cover is not provided by any other
insurance;
5. you have the owner’s permission to
drive the vehicle;
6. the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition;
and
7. you still have the insured 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

NeilMcGrane

CiniO wrote: »

You can.
And also from what you quoted, it doesn't look like there's a requirement for other vehicle to be insured by its owner.

So how will that work in the case of a Garda checkpoint or stop if there is no insurance disc displayed in the window? I'm assuming I can't use the disc for my personal car, or could I?

Cows Go µ wrote: »

Well it says subject to the terms and conditions of the policy so it might have said it there however it doesn't for Liberty. A quick google gives the conditions:

...

Yeah, I read that in the handbook I received from Liberty too. So from my understanding there is no limit on litre/displacement of the vehicle or anything? Once its taxed, NCT'd and insured(?) and not any of the above outlined 'forbidden' classes.

CiniO

NeilMcGrane wrote: »

So how will that work in the case of a Garda checkpoint or stop if there is no insurance disc displayed in the window? I'm assuming I can't use the disc for my personal car, or could I?

No, you can't use disc from your own car.
If you are driving without a disc, you are committing an offence.
However if you can prove to gardai that your policy covers you to drive (f.e. by showing insurance certificate), then changes of being fined/prosecuted for that offence are very slim.

NeilMcGrane

CiniO wrote: »

No, you can't use disc from your own car.
If you are driving without a disc, you are committing an offence.
However if you can prove to gardai that your policy covers you to drive (f.e. by showing insurance certificate), then changes of being fined/prosecuted for that offence are very slim.

Ah, that makes more sense. Cheers!

Esel

Cows Go µ wrote: »

Well it says subject to the terms and conditions of the policy so it might have said it there however it doesn't for Liberty. A quick google gives the conditions:

1. the vehicle is not owned by your
employer or hired to them under a
hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2. you currently hold a full European
Union (EU) licence;
3. the use of the vehicle is covered in the
certificate of insurance;
4. cover is not provided by any other
insurance;
5. you have the owner’s permission to
drive the vehicle;
6. the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition;
and
7. you still have the insured 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

#4 above is a bit confusing!

Does it imply that the other car must *not" be insured ( ! ), or that the you (the driver of the other car) must not be covered by any other policy) ?

Cows Go µ

Esel wrote: »

#4 above is a bit confusing!

Does it imply that the other car must *not" be insured ( ! ), or that the you (the driver of the other car) must not be covered by any other policy) ?

You can check with Liberty but what it probably means is that Liberty aren't going to cover you if you are already insured to drive the other car (as a named driver) as you should be claiming from the other insurance in the event of a claim

Cows Go µ

Esel wrote: »

#4 above is a bit confusing!

Does it imply that the other car must *not" be insured ( ! ), or that the you (the driver of the other car) must not be covered by any other policy) ?

You can check with Liberty but what it probably means is that Liberty aren't going to cover you if you are already insured to drive the other car (as a named driver) as you should be claiming from the other insurance in the event of a claim

Sue Pa Key Pa

No. 4 means that your policy will cover you, providing you don't have cover on the vehicle you are driving by some other means. i.e. named on the policy or if it has open drive.

However, the policy (if there is one), on the other vehicle will have a similar clause. Therefore, it would appear that both policies exclude the cover because indemnity is available elsewhere. This is not allowed happen and your own policy, for 3rd party losses, takes precedent.

coylemj

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

No. 4 means that your policy will cover you, providing you don't have cover on the vehicle you are driving by some other means. i.e. named on the policy or if it has open drive.

Correct. The typical rule is that if the car's own policy will cover you (under 'open driving'), your own policy (even if you have 'driving other cars' cover) will not.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

However, the policy (if there is one), on the other vehicle will have a similar clause. Therefore, it would appear that both policies exclude the cover because indemnity is available elsewhere. This is not allowed happen and your own policy, for 3rd party losses, takes precedent.

The same condition in the car's own policy will apply to that car's owner driving other cars, not to someone who borrows the car and drives it under the 'open driving' cover.

coylemj

CiniO wrote: »

And also from what you quoted, it doesn't look like there's a requirement for other vehicle to be insured by its owner.

Aviva is currently the only insurer which imposes that condition.

Sue Pa Key Pa

coylemj wrote: »

Correct. The typical rule is that if the car's own policy will cover you (under 'open driving'), your own policy (even if you have 'driving other cars' cover) will not.



The same condition in the car's own policy will apply to that car's owner driving other cars, not to someone who borrows the car and drives it under the 'open driving' cover.

The same principle applies if the driver is named on another policy or if the other policy is on an open drive basis. The clause inserted in both policies means the driver's own insurance policy will pick up the 3rd party aspect of the loss in either case

coylemj

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The same principle applies if the driver is named on another policy or if the other policy is on an open drive basis. The clause inserted in both policies means the driver's own insurance policy will pick up the 3rd party aspect of the loss in either case

But in law it is the owner of the car who is ultimately liable so if there are self-cancelling clauses ('claim off the other guy's policy') in both policies then surely it is the owner who has to cover the claim?

Liam McPoyle

coylemj wrote: »

But in law it is the owner of the car who is ultimately liable so if there are self-cancelling clauses ('claim off the other guy's policy') in both policies then surely it is the owner who has to cover the claim?

In reality if someone crashes another vehicle while driving TPO with DoC, the TP element will be covered by their policy and the vehicle owners policy will cover damage to the vehicle.

Believe it or not insurers are fairly amicable when it comes to things like this.

grogi

Business Cat wrote: »

In reality if someone crashes another vehicle while driving TPO with DoC, the TP element will be covered by their policy and the vehicle owners policy will cover damage to the vehicle.

Believe it or not insurers are fairly amicable when it comes to things like this.

Does the DoC clause typically exclude the liability for damages to the vehicle driven under that extension?

If the car driven does not belong to the driver, any damage done to this vehicle is a third party damage. It is not a loss to the first party (the driver) nor to the second party (insurance). Similarly if someone driving a car damages his own property - exp. crashes into a house. Typical motor insurance DOES NOT provide cover for damage like that.

coylemj

grogi wrote: »

Does the DoC clause typically exclude the liability for damages to the vehicle driven under that extension?

Generally yes, DoC typically covers TPO even where the owner has fully comp.. But there are some situations where you can have fully comp. cover when driving other cars.

I have it from Axa up to a limit of 30K i.e. as long as the car I borrow isn't worth more than 30K, the owner will be fully compensated if I drive it into a ditch and write it off. Previously the only restriction was engine size (TPO if it was >2L), now it's just a cap of 30K.

In my case they gave it to me without being asked so its a tactic to hold on to my business (10+ years NCB) and they remind me of this every year when I phone them to reduce the renewal quote.

grogi

coylemj wrote: »

Generally yes, DoC typically covers TPO even where the owner has fully comp.. But there are some situations where you can have fully comp. cover when driving other cars.

I have it from Axa up to a limit of 30K i.e. as long as the car I borrow isn't worth more than 30K, the owner will be fully compensated if I drive it into a ditch and write it off. Previously the only restriction was engine size (TPO if it was >2L), now it's just a cap of 30K.

In my case its a tactic to hold on to my business (10+ years NCB) and they remind me of this every year when I phone them to reduce the renewal quote.

What I mean is that the damage to the driven car under DoC IS THIRD PARTY damage - it is not the loss incurred to the insured, but to the vehicle owner. Vehicle owner, for the purpose of this particular insurance contract, is a third party (not insured nor insurer).

To differentiate regular DoC and Comprehensive DoC, the former would have to explicitly exclude the liability towards the vehicle owner.

-- edit

I actually checked my AIG booklet and it does exclude that:

We will not cover: /.../ any person claiming for damage to property which happens while You owned the property or had it in Your possession or control;

In other words, damage to property owned or controlled by insured is not covered.

CiniO

grogi wrote: »

Does the DoC clause typically exclude the liability for damages to the vehicle driven under that extension?

If the car driven does not belong to the driver, any damage done to this vehicle is a third party damage. It is not a loss to the first party (the driver) nor to the second party (insurance). Similarly if someone driving a car damages his own property - exp. crashes into a house. Typical motor insurance DOES NOT provide cover for damage like that.

I think what Business Cat meant was case where vehicle had it's own comprehensive policy covering that driver to drive as well.

F.e. I have comprehensive policy on my car and I have my wife named on a policy as named driver.
So she is covered to drive that car.

But she also has a car and her own insurance policy which allows her to drive other cars.

So f.e. if my wife is driving my car and crashes into some other car, then her own policy will cover third party damage to that car she crashed into, while my policy will cover damage to my car (as she was named on the policy).

That way we'll be both screwed with premium rise next renewal.

They invented it well.

Sue Pa Key Pa

coylemj wrote: »

But in law it is the owner of the car who is ultimately liable so if there are self-cancelling clauses ('claim off the other guy's policy') in both policies then surely it is the owner who has to cover the claim?

The cause of the loss is usually the negligence of the driver, therefore the driver's own policy takes priotity

Liam McPoyle

CiniO wrote: »

I think what Business Cat meant was case where vehicle had it's own comprehensive policy covering that driver to drive as well.

F.e. I have comprehensive policy on my car and I have my wife named on a policy as named driver.
So she is covered to drive that car.

But she also has a car and her own insurance policy which allows her to drive other cars.

So f.e. if my wife is driving my car and crashes into some other car, then her own policy will cover third party damage to that car she crashed into, while my policy will cover damage to my car (as she was named on the policy).

That way we'll be both screwed with premium rise next renewal.

They invented it well.

Not necessarily.

You could elect to cover all costs under your own insurance if you wanted and your wife's policy would not be effected (she would have to declare the claim though to her own and other insurers if looking for a new quote)

When someone is driving under DoC and has an accident, cover under their policy does not automatically kick in however the option is there for her insurer to be forced into covering TP injuries if it went that far.

coylemj

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The cause of the loss is usually the negligence of the driver.....

I think that's a given, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about a claim.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

... therefore the driver's own policy takes priotity

Therefore nothing (sine qua non). In law it is the owner of the car who is ultimately liable. So if the two insurance companies point at each other and their exclusion clauses, the car owner (meaning his insurance) will be left to carry the can.

Sue Pa Key Pa

coylemj wrote: »

I think that's a given, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about a claim.

.

It's not 'a given'. A loss can be caused to a 3rd party because of a defect in the vehicle, rather than the actions of the driver. The claim is handled differently in those circumstances