Driving a courtesy car and insurance

by8auj6csd3ioq

If your car is being repaired and the garage give you a car which is taxed and nct'd and insurance transferred to you but there is no insuance disk on screen

What is the legal situation if a garda stops you? can you be prosecuted for non display? You cannot put your disk on a different car can you as the reg would be different

EDIT This has not happened to me it is hypothetical based on a discussion we had in work

ED E

I believe you as the driver are responsible for the vehicles condition no matter ownership etc. You should ensure there's a disk on it before driving it away. In the same manner a truck driver cannot claim his boss didn't maintain the vehicle, he's responsible.

ace_irl

I had an email from my insurer that confirmed my current insurance was transferred to my temporary car when mine was getting fixed. It listed the reg of the temp car.

I kept my own insurance disc with me just in case.

source

The insurance disc has a registration printed on it, it is only for use in that vehicle, use in another vehicle can be considered fraudulent use of an instrument. Carry proof with you that the car is on loan from a garage and you are insured to drive and there should be no issue.

ohnonotgmail

Can they be prosecuted for non display of a disc contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic (Insurance Disc) Regulations, 1984? Yes they can. Would they be prosecuted? probably not if this was the only issue with the car.

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can they be prosecuted for non display of a disc contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic (Insurance Disc) Regulations, 1984? Yes they can. Would they be prosecuted? probably not if this was the only issue with the car.

In such a case as the OP describes there is no legal requirement under the 1984 Regulations to display an insurance disc.

ohnonotgmail

GM228 wrote: »

In such a case as the OP describes there is no legal requirement under the 1984 Regulations to display an insurance disc.

These are the exemptions mentioned in the act. Which of them applies to the OP? D refers to government vehicles and i dont see a mention of a trade licence in the OP.


(2) These Regulations shall not apply to—


( a ) a motor-cycle or a motor-cycle and sidecar combination;


( b ) an agricultural tractor;


( c ) a vehicle exhibiting a trade licence;


( d ) a vehicle owned or being used by an exempted person within the meaning of Part VI of the Act;


( e ) a vehicle registered outside the State.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

These are the exemptions mentioned in the act.  Which of them applies to the OP? D refers to government vehicles and i dont see a mention of a trade licence in the OP.


 (2) These Regulations shall not apply to—


( a ) a motor-cycle or a motor-cycle and sidecar combination;


( b ) an agricultural tractor;


( c ) a vehicle exhibiting a trade licence;


( d ) a vehicle owned or being used by an exempted person within the meaning of Part VI of the Act;


( e ) a vehicle registered outside the State.

It's nothing to do with the exemptions.

The obligation to display an insurance disc stems from regulation 5 which states:-

5. (1) A person shall not use a vehicle in a public place, after the expiration of a period of ten days commencing on the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance, unless the vehicle carries an insurance disc in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

The legal requirement to display an insurance disc starts 10 days after the "date of authentication of the certificate of insurance" for the vehicle.

As no new certificate of insurance is issued in such a circumstance the 10 day countdown never starts so the obligation to display in such a circumstance can't arise.

ohnonotgmail

GM228 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the exemptions.

The obligation to display an insurance disc stems from regulation 5 which states:-



The legal requirement to display an insurance disc starts 10 days after the "date of authentication of the certificate of insurance" for the vehicle.

As no new certificate of insurance is issued in such a circumstance the 10 day countdown never starts so the obligation to display in such a circumstance can't arise.

my reading of "insurance transferred to you" is that the OP was added as a named driver to an existing policy. So there should be a disc for the existing policy.

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

my reading of "insurance transferred to you" is that the OP was added as a named driver to an existing policy. So there should be a disc for the existing policy.

I think the OP screwed up their wordig there, that would not happen for a courtesy vehicle or garage insurance. The OP would transfer their insurance onto the garage owned car.

mickdw

Insurance transferred would generally mean your own policy temporarily swapped onto the garage car.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

my reading of "insurance transferred to you" is that the OP was added as a named driver to an existing policy. So there should be a disc for the existing policy.

No. What happened is the o/p transferred his own insurance to the garage car. A garage is not going to accept responsibility for the driving of any customer. As such it is a new insurance. The insurance is new in the sense that the policy was previously for a different car.

ohnonotgmail

GM228 wrote: »

I think the OP screwed up their wordig there, that would not happen for a courtesy vehicle or garage insurance. The OP would transfer their insurance onto the garage owned car.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No. What happened is the o/p transferred his own insurance to the garage car. A garage is not going to accept responsibility for the driving of any customer. As such it is a new insurance. The insurance is new in the sense that the policy was previously for a different car.

Perhaps you are both correct, and it is certainly the most common scenario, but i just dont get that from what is in the OP.

Cookie_Monster

Why would you transfer your policy to the car, the garage will have it insured already surely?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

It's actually slightly more complex than that due to the construction of insurance law here.

Not to say that your point isn't valid, obviously, insured persons would prefer if their policy was untouched and it regularly happens that insurable instances are covered by numerous policies. For example, in running theatre performances, the physical theatre where the performance is held will have insurance, as will the performance troupe or individual, as will the promoter etc. In some circumstances and following that example, even the attendees will be covered by an insurance policy, such as a school visiting a theatrical performance.

Of note in relation to the above is that the reason for so many policies is legal ambiguity as to who may be liable in the event of an incident giving rise to an action over the course of a theatrical performance.

In the same but far less complex vein, the owner of a car must have an insurance policy in respect of it particularly where it is loaned to another individual lawfully. If a problem arises as a result of omission or act of the owner in relation to the car while it's being driven by another, the owner may have a proportion of liability. Similarly, the borrower of the car must have insurance in relation to the car to cover for their own acts or omissions that may give rise to a liability.

One thing that sits at the back of my mind but does so in a very intrusive way to my train of thought is the question of insurable interest. Admittedly, it's something I've only ever looked at in passing but in relation to borrowing a car from a garage, I presume the insurable interest is in relation to a possessory title to the car. Does anyone have anything to hand that covers that aspect?

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

One thing that sits at the back of my mind but does so in a very intrusive way to my train of thought is the question of insurable interest. Admittedly, it's something I've only ever looked at in passing but in relation to borrowing a car from a garage, I presume the insurable interest is in relation to a possessory title to the car. Does anyone have anything to hand that covers that aspect?

This may go some way to answering your question Hullaballoo, from the Law Reform Commission "Insurance Contract LRC CP65 -2011" report:-

There is no clear statement from the Irish courts on whether a strict legal interest test is to be applied or whether a factual expectation test, or some variant thereon, will be enough to satisfy an insurable interest requirement, when this arises.

Macaura was considered in Coen v Employers Liability Insurance Co but no opinion was expressed on the relevant test. The facts of PJ Carrigan Ltd and Carrigan v Norwich Union Fire Society Ltd closely resemble those contained in Macaura itself, but Lynch J had no difficulty in finding that because the second plaintiff was the holder of a substantial if not a beneficial interest in a company that had purchased real property, the second plaintiff had in law an insurable interest. The factual expectation test is in accordance with recent Irish case law that recognises legitimate expectation as being an alternative basis for recognising promises as enforceable, even absent some legal ground for holding the promise to be contractually enforceable.


There are of course difficulties in using legitimate expectation in this way – an insurance company is not a public body and it is engaged in commercial, not regulatory activities. But contract law alone can be adequate. If the contract of insurance was characterised as one in which the insurer has undertaken to extend cover to a proposer or insured, and the facts reveal that the proposer or insured has a (legitimate) or factual expectation that the policy will be honoured, it is difficult to see why or how an insurer should be permitted to resile from the contract. The legitimate or factual expectation should of course be anchored on some appropriate economic relationship between the proposer or insured and the subject matter of the insurance contract. Wagering contracts will not suffice; situations where the proposer or insured has suffered no loss because the property is essentially owned by others will be outside most insurance contracts, by virtue of the indemnity principle. If an insurer is to insist upon being able to avoid payment upon a policy because no insurable interest existed at the time of the contract, it might be appropriate to require the insurer to bargain for such a right in express terms and be under a duty to seek information from the proposer on the nature of the interest held as a sine qua non to such a right to resile from a contract. In the absence of such an exchange of information, an insurer should be regarded as not requiring the proposer to have anything other than a factual expectation in the transaciton or property in question and that the policy will be honoured by the insurer. As the reasoning of Wilson J in Constitution Insurance Co of Canada v Kosmonpoulos attests, the insurable interest requirement is a poor means of advancing the deterrence functions against wagering and moral hazard, while at the same time having the negative effect of frustrating the development of socially desirable insurance policies, especially in the areas of income protection, elderly and disability maintenance insurance, and life policies.

In A Casebook of Irish Insurance Law, Corrigan and Campbell observe:

By and large, however, it is rare for insurers to raise the issue of insurable interest to avoid their contractual obligations. It is primarily a technical requirement and, in the absence of significant substantive reasons for relying on it as a defence, it is unlikely that an insurer would obtain a sympathetic hearing and so succeed in invoking it before an Irish court.

Discodog

So what is the situation where your policy covers you to drive another car with third party cover ? You can't display a disk but are insured.

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

So what is the situation where your policy covers you to drive another car with third party cover ? You can't display a disk but are insured.

Same as I previously posted.

dccaresuckers

car insurance companies are becoming the real suckers oin this country.

by8auj6csd3ioq

"I think the OP screwed up their wordig there, that would not happen for a courtesy vehicle or garage insurance. The OP would transfer their insurance onto the garage owned car."

Maybe i made a bad job of explaining. The customers rang the insurance company and said "please transfer my insurance from the car i have insured with you to the garage loaned car" which was taxed and had a valid NCT

Sorry