My dear wife recently bought a Mondeo and we still have her Volvo 340 parked in the drive, taxed and tested. My own insurance policy covers me to drive other cars on a third party only basis and I asked the insurance company if I could drive the 340 under this insurance. I was concerned that they may say that, as it was my wife?s car, it did not qualify under the ?Any car not owned by you or hired to you under a Hire Purchase agreement? clause. What?s yours is mine, etc.
Their reply surprised me. They confirmed I am able to drive a car not owned by me and yes, I could drive my wife?s car but ?only if the car is already insured in it?s own right. If it has no insurance then the driving other cars extension does not apply?
I wonder why this is as any claim could not be for damage to the 340 but only to cover a third parties loss.
Where you all aware of this restriction? Just as well I checked.
|
|
Alwyn, this is to prevent someone owning two cars and registering one in a partners name in order to avoid paying two insurance premiums. They have every angle covered!
|
|
|
"They have every angle covered!"
Until you make a claim!
|
Alwyn,
I can't remember the topic exactly but this was thrashed out a while back. I think Mark (Brazil) was on the case.
David
|
|
|
|
Alwyn,
Take a 17 year old(or for that matter anyone) who wanted to drive something really 'hot' and in a high insurance group. He could, say, buy a old Fiat Panda(group 1) for next to nothing, insure that and drive his Ferrari.
If insurance companies didn't have this provision anyone prepared to have Third Party Insurance could do this.
Bob H
|
|
i dont need to do this, as i have my own supercar, its a - lada. WOW look how fast its going, it must be doing all of - 60 MPH, my god thats FAST, i bet everyone wishes they had one ;-)
|
|
i love knowing that with my car the police cant stop me (thats because the car cant go any faster than 70 mph)
|
|
|
|
Yes, I can see that and I was simply asking them if I could drive the Volvo on my own insurance, third party only, to take it to the auction or to show it to prospective buyers.
Our other two cars are both with them so we were not trying to hide anything.
What should be of concern is that, as far as I can can see (I have not read every word of the policy doc.) there is nothing on the Certificate of Insurance which says the "other car" must be separately insured in it's own right in order to drive it under the "driving other cars" extension.
I suppose they are thinking in terms of the farmer with 6 barns of hay; he insures one barn. Then if one burns down, he says that was the one insured.
This is why such claims claims are now "subject to average" which means that if he had six barns then the risk was six times greater than one barn and the company woud only pay one sixth of his claim ( or might even avoid it altogether in the absence of an "average" clause).
The "driving other cars" extension should be made crystal clear and state that the car must be insured in it's own right.
Thanks to all for your responses.
|
|
|
|
Previous policies I have had have allowed driving other cars 3rd party only, but none of them mentioned they had to be insured elsewhere. But if the other car isn't insured, at some point getting tax on it will be difficult. They are also knocking this on the head on cheaper policies. With my traders policy, I can't get tax on vehicles not owned by me or my business, but in my custody.
|
|
|
|
I keep telling readers what Alwyn's insurer told him. The only way to cover a lot of cars on the same policy is to get trade insurance as per this week's Telegraph coulumn.
HJ
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/4354d07b34bc2fe2399fccfc9b3b92ac/3d6964fef24e49e6acc8259413ae6d09.jpg)
