Insurance confusion

Mervyn Skidmore

My wife is buying her first car in the North, hoping to collect on Saturday. I have a policy of insurance on my own car that allows driving other cars so I was hoping to collect the car for her and drive it back. When looking through the insurance info pack it says that I can't however drive my spouses car. It does not say this on the cert though. Anyway, I rang my insurance broker and queried this. The guy on the phone said that I am fine to drive her car, even after pointing out the contradiction. I asked him should I temporarily transfer over to the other can while carrying out VRT etc. but he said no, it was fine.

Anyway, I'm not sure I trust the answer I got and the last thing I want to happen is to find that I am uninsured. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

hi_im_fil

You’d be on dodgy ground driving a Uk registered car on a driving other cars extension. Not something I’d risk personally. Better off to transfer your insurance temporarily if possible.

Mervyn Skidmore

hi_im_fil wrote: »

You’d be on dodgy ground driving a Uk registered car on a driving other cars extension. Not something I’d risk personally. Better off to transfer your insurance temporarily if possible.

Thanks, I asked him that and he said it was fine.

Cows Go µ

If your policy booklet says that you aren't covered then you aren't covered. The cert can't be read by itself, your policy is what's outlined in the policy booklet, the schedule and the cert. It doesn't matter what a guy on the phone says.

Mervyn Skidmore

Cows Go µ wrote: »

If your policy booklet says that you aren't covered then you aren't covered. The cert can't be read by itself, your policy is what's outlined in the policy booklet, the schedule and the cert. It doesn't matter what a guy on the phone says.

Well, that's what I want to clarify, which is correct the cert or the information booklet. I always thought the cert was the important document, legally? Eg. If the gardai pull you over, they are only interested in the disc and the cert. And the guy on the phone was a representative of the company I purchased the policy from so I would hope what he says matters? Anyway, there are contradictions and that's what I want clarified.

Eggs For Dinner

As Cows said, you need to read the schedule, cert and policy as one document. You will find something along the lines of "as described in the schedule" or "unless stated otherwise on the certificate"

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

As Cows said, you need to read the schedule, cert and policy as one document. You will find something along the lines of "as described in the schedule" or "unless stated otherwise on the certificate"

+1 OP, you're into wishful thinking here. If the policy document contains an exclusion which says that you cannot drive a car owned by your spouse then you will not be covered. The cert. is simply a document to show to the cops, it is not designed to answer every question about cover, that's why there is a policy document.

'It doesn't say it's not allowed on the cert.' will be no defence if there is a claim and you have to dip into your own pocket

Your broker directly contradicting the policy document is more proof that you should never phone anyone to clarify what is and is not covered, even the insurance company.

NUTLEY BOY

If there is a clear contradiction between the policy wording in the booklet and the certificate the policyholder should get the benefit of doubt on the contra proferentem principle. This would be on the basis that the insurer composed the documents and any contradiction should be construed against them.

At a practical level you really don't want to find yourself arguing that one in court.

In short, you take absolutely nothing as granted from an insurance broker or an insurance company over the telephone unless you have it subsequently in writing. The contents of telephone conversations are notoriously difficult to evidence.

The certificate of insurance is the official document you need to show the existence of a motor insurance policy as required under the RTA 1961 - see sections 66 & 67.

coylemj

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If there is a clear contradiction between the policy wording in the booklet and the certificate the policyholder should get the benefit of doubt on the contra proferentem principle. This would be on the basis that the insurer composed the documents and any contradiction should be construed against them.

The cert. is a document which is produced to show to the cops, it is essentially a summary of your cover but it doesn't have space for the full terms and conditions. Just because a specific condition is not stated both in the policy and on the cert. doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

As has already been pointed out, the cert, the policy document and the schedule must be read as one document. You cannot simply interpret the cert. in isolation and ignore what it says in the policy when it suits you.

NUTLEY BOY

coylemj wrote: »

The cert. is a document which is produced to show to the cops, it is essentially a summary of your cover but it doesn't have space for the full terms and conditions. Just because a specific condition is not stated both in the policy and on the cert. doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

As has already been pointed out, the cert, the policy document and the schedule must be read as one document. You cannot simply interpret the cert. in isolation and ignore what it says in the policy when it suits you.

Precisely my point.

Certificate and document to be read as one document.