Firstly it might be helpful if you changed your username, since there is another Hugo here (although I've no idea what he does ;-)
I understand that fully comp insurance also covers for any other car (third party).
Not neccessarily, but usually. You are confusing two different things.
Essentially you have the level of cover applied to the policy. Fully comprehensive would normally mean; accidental damage, third party liability, fire, theft, glass, rugs and clothing and some accessories. However this changes between insurance policies and shoult not be taken for granted.
Then you have the type of usage allowed (SD&P, Business Use, etc. etc.) Then you have driving restrictions (just yourself, you and spouse etc. etc) and then you have other extensions.
One of those is the "Driving other cars" extension. Essentially that he policyholde (and sometimes spouse) may drive a car not owned by him and not hired to him and a hire purchase agreement etc. etc. etc. for Third Party cover only while he is in charge of the vehicle.
That DOC extension may be given irrespective of other levels of cover and is more likely to be restricted by either age or occupation than what level of cover you have on your own vehicle.
Does this mean it covers for any car even if that car has no insurance? Or does the other car already have to be insured under the owners name?
Arguable. Essentially it can be taken that for as long as you are actually driving the vehicle it is insured for third party risks by your insurance if you have the DOC extension. It is virtually impossible to apply restrictions to the legal minimum cover which must either be given or not - so theoretically you are insured whether or not the car is seperately insured. However there are two areas to be careful of;
1) it isn't insured if you're not driving it, so if you park it there is an issue.
2) secondly, whilst the law will regard you as legally insured you may be in breach of your policy Ts&Cs which may insist that the car is insured in its own right. This will not invalidate your insurance cover while driving that vehicle, but it may give your insurer the right of recovery from yourself in the event of a claim.
You need to read your own policy in detail and also understand that this is always a difficult area since it is heavily governed by the required declaration of any information, material to the assesment of the risk. Which means if you know you're going to do it, and you know you're going to do it often, then you need to tell your insurer whether or not they ask. At which point they will specifically exclude it.
Do bear in mind that this is my opinion only and you *MUST* read your own isurance policy to know for sure. If at that point you are in any doubt, ask your insurer and get an answer in writing.
Can anyone out there put me right in this? Am I reaching in my pocket to pay out, or will I be celebrating with a soft drink (I don't drink)?
You're reaching into your pocket. Sorry.
|
I have raised the following question before but I believe nobody has ever answered it. This is now Marks opportunity, as insurance guru, altho DVD input may be useful.
You have made the comment that cover only exists when driving it,(eg park it, go to a shop and cover ceases) however doesnt the law deem you to be in charge of the vehicle if you have the keys on your person? I am sure I can remember somebody being done for drunk in charge (or whatever the term is) when the vehicle was in a pub car park and they were inebriated in the bar. The possession of the keys was enough to convict and I believe an appeal failed.
I appreciate that there is probably a technical difference between 'may drive other vehicles' and being 'in charge' but a definitive answer would clarify the issue.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
I noticed another Hugo when I first logged in. I hope Rune is OK (from a character Hugo Rune).
Nice answer Mark. Very comprehensive. Except for when it's parked.
It seems to me it is OK to actually drive the car, I will be insured. But the bit about how the cover works when it is parked is still certainly a grey area. It seems a good point brought up by pmh. If the car is hit while I'm in a shop. It looks like the car would have no cover and any claim would revert to the owner of the car. Is this right?
|
Hi Rune,
Glad we got that identity crises sorted ;).
To answer Mark's question, as little as poss. When I have time off from doing that I attempt to help with this site;)
H
|
Pmh
The offence is use,cause or permit a motor vehicle on a road without Insurance. I/c doesn't feature.
There are a plethora of decisions by Hight Court on just what is "using" and there is no hard and fast definition that can be applied in every circumstance.
In Thomas v Hooper [1986] "using" was held to involve an element of controlling,managing or operating the vehicle as a vehicle.
Leaving someone elses vehicle covered by your own Insurance whilst shopping and away from the vehicle is therefore a very grey area and whether a High Court Judge would accept under these circumstances is debateable. Would have thought this point would have been tested before but I have no knowledge from my bits and pieces. Maybe PU knows different?
DVD
|
re: DOC Extension whilst vehicle is unattended.
The answer is that I don't really know for sure. However, I suspect that it will come down to the wording of the clause which is specifically "drive" rather than "use". [the policholder may also drive a vehicle not owned by him ........]
PU may know since he may have seen one come up for real.
|
At least this year my policy has been clarified - instead of just DOC, there is the addition "which is covered by a policy in its own right".
Martin
|
Surely the 'driver' of a car is the person who last 'used' it. (And is therefore responsible for it being badly parked and causing an accident, or whatever)
That's how parking fines work, isn't it?
|
If the other vehicle was uninsured, wouldn't an insurance company regard you as insuring two vehicles on the one policy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
I've seen a car, years ago, ricochet off 7 or 8 cars either side of the road. They were all perfectly parked outside their own houses. In this case, surely you can't blame the people that parked them.
Accidents do occur to cars parked properly as well. This is what I meant in this instance.
|
|
simple, a car has to be insured by the person who is named on the log book, if it is not then it has no right to be on the road.
|
|
Wrong. Totally wrong. Simple, but totally wrong.
|
simple, a car has to be insured by the person who is named on the log book, if it is not then it has no right to be on the road.
Not so. My (company) car is owned by Godfrey Davis, but insured by my employer.
|
"Not so. My (company) car is owned by Godfrey Davis, but insured by my employer."
And a fine old confusion it causes when stopped by plod.
Good evening sir is this your car?
Nope
Ah, and do you have insurance?
Nope
|
And a fine old confusion it causes when stopped by plod.
A very young wild friend of mine had a nice variant of that when his girlfriend's charming father lent him the car.
Was stopped, by a very smug-looking plod, in very aggresive mood.
Plod: Is that your car?
Young scruff: No.
Plod: Get out of the car now!
Young scruff: Just a mo
Scruff presses button on car phone, picks it up, and says "someone here would like a wee chat".
Hands to plod, who stretches the cable to put handset to ear.
Plod soon turns crimson, and starts stuttering "yes, chief constable ... no chief constable ... very sorry, sir ... indeed sir, your friend sir"
|
>> And a fine old confusion it causes when stopped by plod. A very young wild friend of mine had a nice variant of that when his girlfriend's charming father lent him the car. [SNIP - to save space] - you don't need to quote the whole previous post, just enough to know what you're replying to.
Forgive my cynism but - yeah right ;)
Like by asking the driver 'Is this your car' and the driver replying 'No' does it mean automatically that the Driver has stolen it? I don't think so. More questions and no answers later, then yes the driver *might* be arrested because it raises the Officer's 'suspicion' and the law says that an Officer only needs to have REASONABLE grounds to suspect the person guilty of an offence to arrest them. So if the Officer's suspicions were raised then yes, in those circumstances the driver *might* get arrested - and for the record, just because the Police have asked you to step out of the vehicle, doesn't neccessaily mean that you're going to be arrested. There are a variety of reasons and I think NoWheels that you've missed out bits of the story and perhaps exaggerating it a bit ;)
And if an Officer on the street decides an arrest is justified, then no Chief Constable would dare step in at the time because it could and would be seen as interfering with due process for which even he could face the sack. So I'm sorry either your story is missing bits or is simply not true :P
|
"Not so. My (company) car is owned by Godfrey Davis, but insured by my employer." And a fine old confusion it causes when stopped by plod.
I think they will be used to it by now? I'd guess rather a large percentage of vehicles on the road belong to a leasing or finance company.
|
I don't understand whay it causes confusion? I'm sure when the Police do their checks it comes up on the DVLA database as a lease vehicle from Godfrey DAVIS - signifying that Godfrey DAVIS is a company and not a person, but this too wouldn't be a source of confusion because a car's OWNER isn't neccessarily its KEEPER (as the small print reminds us on the V5).
So why on earth would it cause confusion to the Police if/when you get stopped?
|
The old 'driving other cars' extension chestnut...I've had this argument with my parents and other people and thank fully I won the argument (mind you, one of the guys I was arguing with also believes you can't be convicted on the evidence of one Traffic Police Officer).
It is my understanding that provided the car you want to drive is road legal (taxed and MOT'd and otherwise roadworthy) then you are insured third party only to drive it. I read my insurance policy and could find nothing that disagreed with this line of reasoning, so I rang them up and very, very specifically asked the question and it confirmed what I already thought was true-I guess there is room for YOUR policy to vary so read the policy very, very carefully-if it doesn't say that that the car you want to drive using the 'driving other cars' extension needs to be insured in it's own right then it doesn't-ring the insurance company if you want further confirmation.
For example my policy all it stipulates is you must have the car OWNERS permission and the car is not owned by you, hired to you or leased and of course it must be road legal.
As for insurance when the car is parked etc-who cares?? It is the person who OWNS the car who is liable for the risks of the car when it is unattended. Whilst you are driving the vehicle you have the legal minimum third party cover backed by your insurance company, when you 'finish' driving it then there is no cover, but it is no longer your responsibility.
I would suggest that the cover lasts as long as you are 'driving' the car-so for example you drove this car to the shop, left it unattended whilst in the shops but were still 'using' the car and would be returning to it if an accident happened that you could be liable for (say you had left it parked in a dangerous place and it caused a crash that was your fault) then the insurance company would still pay out-that is just a guess though I can't say that's fact as I'm no legal expert.
Incidentally does a car need to be insured to be parked on the 'public highway' if it is otherwise legal?
For example at this moment in time I have two cars, one is insured and I use it daily, the other is not driven at all, but it is left in an offroad parking bay near my house-it is taxed and MOT'd and I'm trying to sell it but it certainly isn't insured-am I breaking the law?
|
Yes this old chestnut ;) Always causes a stir since it's one of those 'small print things'.
In general terms those of us who have COMPREHENSIVE insurance do have our Insurer's permission to drive 'other vehicles' as a Third party risk only - however as the last commentator has pointed out:
>>It is my understanding that provided the car you want to drive is road legal (taxed and MOT'd and otherwise roadworthy) then you are insured third party only to drive it.
The caveats are that you have the owners PERMISSION and the vehicle being 'ROAD LEGAL' (or is it Road Worthy? IMHO it is Road Legal)...so for a car to be ROAD LEGAL it would need to have a valid MOT - thus ensuring that it is 'safe' to be on the road. Next it would need RFL - to certify that it can be on the road, but you can ONLY get RFL if you have MOT and INSURANCE. And the last aspect is of course insurance.
So for you or I as law abiding citizens to drive say our nieghbours car and be properly covered would mean that the car would need to have:
RFL, MOT (where applicable) and insurance. If any of the three are absent, then we would be driving with no insurance we wouldn't meet with the pre-requisits of the cover.
And the level of cover we are afforded is Third Party - which the bare minimum The Law requires. It doens't cover Fire or Theft...so if you were driving a car on Third Party basis and you got 'Car Jacked' (ie: twas stolen) whose insurance would be liable then - I'd wager not yours...
But the point is that for you to drive another vehicle it MUST have it's own schedule of insurance in force so it can cover all eventualities either through your own insurance, or that of the owners.
Another example would be you are driving the car Third Party, park it up and it catches fire (quite innocently) and it then burns down a nearby house - the insurance of the owner would be liable.
|
|
I always thought that your own insurance only covered you to drive a vehicle legally lent to you if the vehicle was either in the same, or lower, insurance group as your own. Is this correct?
|
|
I always wondered about that. Otherwise you could drive off in a group 15 car while your group 1 Micra sits on the driveway.
|
I always thought that your own insurance only covered you to drive a vehicle legally lent to you if the vehicle was either in the same, or lower, insurance group as your own. Is this correct?
No...the extension covers you to drive any car-it's insurance grouping doesn't come in to it.
|
>>RFL, MOT (where applicable) and insurance. If any of the three are absent, then we would be driving with no insurance we wouldn't meet with the pre-requisits of the cover.
Almost always inaccurate. Most insurance policies refer to the car being roadworthy, a very few refer to valid MOTs. None refre to RFL. In addition, this would not give them the right deny a claim, although it would potentially give them the right of recovery from yourself.
|
Almost always inaccurate. Most insurance policies refer to the car being roadworthy, a very few refer to valid MOTs. None refre to RFL. In addition, this would not give them the right deny a claim, although it would potentially give them the right of recovery from yourself.
>>
Of course they enver refer to MOTs or RFL directly, but I am intrigued, how do you certify that a car is 'road worthy' if not for an MOT? If it doesn't have an MOT how can you claim that it is road worthy (obvious excluding cars under three years old)...
|
>>If it doesn't have an MOT how can you claim that it is road worthy
If I needed to prove this I would take it for an MOT, or have it inspected by a qualified engineer/MOT inspecter to ascertain that, with the exception of the damage caused by the accident, it is roadworthy. Albeit I would have to further convince the insurers it had had no work done on it since the incident.
H
|
If I needed to prove this I would take it for an MOT, or have it inspected by a qualified engineer/MOT inspecter to ascertain that, with the exception of the damage caused by the accident, it is roadworthy. Albeit I would have to further convince the insurers it had had no work done on it since the incident. H
>>
But thats exactly the point, it wouldn't be roadworthy since it has no MOT? I realise that it'd be a bureaucratic wheel to turn that the only difference being the MOT certificate, but you're making life far harder for yourself since that is the purpose of an MOT (I am aware that the MOT only really apllies to the condition of the vehicle at the time and only the time the test is done and the insurance company COULD have an acidented car examined to determine if 'at the time' of the accident if it would have passed an MOT - but if this were to happen then they are the ones having to prove otherwise and not 'payout')
Although I will not flog a dead horse and bow to the greater wisdoms of my fellow contributors on this and be perfectly willing to put my hands up and say that I' might be wrong on this - but I'd like to be safe than sorry.
|
Can I try and clear this conception that unroadworthy road vehicle equals no Insurance.
If a policy purports to restrict the extent of its cover by reference to the condition of the vehicle, breach of this by the Insured person will not affect the validity of that policy for the purposes of the criminal offence of using a vehicle on a road without insurance.
This, and other features, is at Section 148 (2) Road Traffic Act 1988.
So having an accident the claim would be paid out to the third party but as I understand it then the Insurance Company may well claim this money back at Civil Court.
DVD
|
Of course it would be daft not to have an MOT and you are indeed making life more difficult for yourself, but nonethless that is the way it is.
A car with an MOT may not be roadworthy and therefore you are in breach of your policy Ts&Cs.
Equally a car without an MOT may be totally roadworthy and therefore quite within Ts&Cs.
An MOT also helps or harms discussions around mitigation and whether or not you could/should reasonably have known of the fault so I am most certainly not recommending the approach.
|
"Interestingly", I have been in several crashes, not always my fault, not always the same level of insurance in each case but in all cases I have never been asked to provide an MoT certificate to my or anyone elses' insurance company (1 collision I was insured TPF&T so my insurance co couldn't care less whether the car was MoT'd or not as the circumstances meant that I wasn't claiming on my policy).
Last year I was involved in a crash, pretty minor, I was fully comp, no mention of wanting to see an MoT to verify the cars roadworthyness, just a bodyshop inspection, sucking of breath over the mileage and a settlement for cash in lieu of repairs.
cheers,
Stu
"XR3 is the one for me, Cruising round for all to see
XR3 is the one for me, 1600CC !!"
|
Incidentally does a car need to be insured to be parked on the 'public highway' if it is otherwise legal? For example at this moment in time I have two cars, one is insured and I use it daily, the other is not driven at all, but it is left in an offroad parking bay near my house-it is taxed and MOT'd and I'm trying to sell it but it certainly isn't insured-am I breaking the law?
>>
I am pretty damn sure that for a car to be on the public highway legally it must be insured, taxed & MoT'd.
So I guess the issue here is that is the "offroad" parking bay part of the highway or not ?
If it is not then you are OK.
I have parked cars that I want to sell on the Queens' Highway, but as I taxed them before swapping the insurance over, no-one seemed to care (as long as I moved it up & down the street every so often so it didn't look as if I wasn't driving it).
|
|
|
|
