Using persoanl vehicle for business use

ACADasltiv

How do people deal with insurance for using their personal cars for business use, or even better, does anyone have experience dealing with this from a Company perspective?

Our employees occasionally need to use their personal car for things such as dropping cheques to the bank, picking up sandwiches for meetings and dropping people to the airport etc. We used to just pay petrol money for this, but since our Company was bought over this has become a big no-no (which is fair enough). The solution has been borrowing a company vehicle when we need to go out, but this obviously has its limitations. We're going to see if our insurance company can cover employees using personal vehicles while carrying out work related duties, but I'm just wondering if anyone has any alternative solutions?

I'm going to see the additional premium adding business use to my policy adds, as if it's not prohibitively expensive (i.e. turning a €500 policy into a €3,000 one) the Company could cover the difference. Not holding out much hope on this one though! Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Eggs For Dinner

The ultimate responsibility for a road traffic accident rests with the driver. You cannot assume this responsibility when he is using his own vehicle, even for your business. When he is driving your vehicle, it isn't an issue as he does so as if he was you.

The solution is for your employees to have their personal policies extended to cover the appropriate use and for you to reimburse them for the additional premium. The amount this will cost depends on the individuals personal insurance arrangements and how willing their insurers are to accommodate this

You can get what is known as a contingency motor policy, which basically means that if your employees policy fails for some reason, there is a back up policy to protect you in case you are sued. This can be difficult to obtain and there are strong terms and conditions

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The solution is for your employees to have their personal policies extended to cover the appropriate use and for you to reimburse them for the additional premium. The amount this will cost depends on the individuals personal insurance arrangements and how willing their insurers are to accommodate this

+1 OP, your employees need to ask their insurers for cover for 'restricted business use'. They need to inform their insurers that they occasionally use their vehicle at work but the activites are (1) not connected with sales and (2) they will not be carrying goods or samples.

This will cover them for the activities you described and the cover usually comes with an indemnity for the employer (you). I was entitled to a company car at work but elected to drive my own car and take a monthly allowance instead but I was required to get the cover described above and I got it from Axa for no additional charge.

ACADasltiv

Thanks for that. Yeah I was thinking because of there not being an insurable interest in the car then it'd be a none runner. Hopefully it doesn't cost and arm and a leg to change the policy to include business use, not holding out much hope on that though!

That's interesting about the contingent motor policy, I'll definitely have to check that out with our insurers as that could suffice if we're lucky enough to get the cover.

ACADasltiv

coylemj wrote: »

+1 OP, your employees need to ask their insurers for cover for 'restricted business use'. They need to inform their insurers that they occasionally use their vehicle at work but the activites are (1) not connected with sales and (2) they will not be carrying goods or samples.

This will cover them for the activities you described and the cover usually comes with an indemnity for the employer (you). I was entitled to a company car at work but elected to drive my own car and take a monthly allowance instead but I was required to get the cover described above and I got it from Axa for no additional charge.

That's brilliant, I'll definitely give that a look. That's good to hear that it didn't cost any extra, if we can sort that or even if it's only a few hundred it will make life much easier.

Alun

I think some insurers do charge for this, but it's not excessive.

coylemj

ACADasltiv wrote: »

Thanks for that. Yeah I was thinking because of there not being an insurable interest in the car then it'd be a none runner.

This 'no insurable interest' nonsense gets bandied about again and again by a select group of posters and TBH it's a load of b***cks to quote it in connection with motor insurance.

I cannot insure my neighbour's house or his life because I have no insurable interest in him or his property but that principle does not apply to third party motor insurance. If it did, how could companies operate a fleet of company cars, all of which are leased from finance companies but the employer pays for the insurance?

You, an as employer, can lease a car on an operating lease (i.e. you never own the car, it goes back at the end of the lease) and you can go out and purchase an insurance policy for that car to cover a named employee to drive that car while on business and for social and domestic use at weekends, even though you (the employer) have 'no insurable interest' in the car.

Eaglebridie 32

Alun wrote: »

I think some insurers do charge for this, but it's not excessive.

No extra charge from AViva for me. last December.

Eggs For Dinner

ACADasltiv wrote:

That's interesting about the contingent motor policy, I'll definitely have to check that out with our insurers as that could suffice if we're lucky enough to get the cover.

The contingency policy only works if your employees arrange the correct cover, but it fails for some reason. e.g. the policy lapses or non-disclosure. It is not a replacement for the correct way to do things

Eggs For Dinner

coylemj wrote: »

This 'no insurable interest' nonsense gets bandied about again and again by a select group of posters and TBH it's a load of b***cks to quote it in connection with motor insurance.

I cannot insure my neighbour's house or his life because I have no insurable interest in him or his property but that principle does not apply to third party motor insurance. If it did, how could companies operate a fleet of company cars, all of which are leased from finance companies but the employer pays for the insurance?

You, an as employer, can lease a car on an operating lease (i.e. you never own the car, it goes back at the end of the lease) and you can go out and purchase an insurance policy for that car to cover a named employee to drive that car while on business and for social and domestic use at weekends, even though you (the employer) have 'no insurable interest' in the car.

You have an insurable interest in a leased vehicle because you have agreed, by contract, to reimburse the lease company the value of the vehicle should anything happen to it. Basically, you break it, you bought it. In addition, you have exclusive control of the vehicle. This is where it differs from borrowing a vehicle where you might feel you have a "moral obligation" to replace a vehicle belonging to someone else, while in your care

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You have an insurable interest in a leased vehicle because you have agreed, by contract, to reimburse the lease company the value of the vehicle should anything happen to it.

+1 No argument there, the company leasing the car clearly has an interest in the car itself because they have to return it undamaged at the end of the lease.

But what has that got to do with third party insurance?

coylemj wrote: »

I cannot insure my neighbour's house or his life because I have no insurable interest in him or his property but that principle does not apply to third party motor insurance.

Eggs For Dinner

I'm not doing this argument again