Refused Insurance

sonners

I agree with you there OKenora, just looking at this thread the difference in information provided by Quinn is ridiculous. Also alot of the threads on here about problems with insurance companies (I've crashed & they wont pay out, etc) refer to Quinn. I know alot of their customers have no choice but to go with them (for young males they seem to be the only ones happy to give insurance) but its not a company I'd voluntarily go with.

Cionád

sonners wrote:

@rowanh: thats mad, the girl on the phone to me said a definite NO because I was under 30. Did you have an existing policy with them? I know this is how alot of people work it.

Do it online and you'll have no trouble providing you have a full license, and its not a t-bar/convertible.

Cionád

But a cheap fiesta or something
get insured with Quinn on it
Register the TT in another name (family)
then Quinn covers you for driving any other car... as long as you have full license

Our man in Havana

That scam has been busted open long ago. If you have a smash you will soon find out how much cover you have.

R.O.R

Cion&#225 wrote: »

But a cheap fiesta or something
get insured with Quinn on it
Register the TT in another name (family)
then Quinn covers you for driving any other car... as long as you have full license

:rolleyes:

I think you'll find that the other car has to be insured before your Quinn policy will cover it, to stop people doing as you describe above. Your insurance will cover you to drive other cars with the owners permission (3rd party coverage only and only if the car in question is insured).

Might want to check your facts before telling people to do something that would leave them driving around uninsured.

Cionád

Bond-007 wrote:

That scam has been busted open long ago. If you have a smash you will soon find out how much cover you have.

Maybe so but you can still Legally drive it.

Cionád

R.O.R wrote:

:rolleyes:

I think you'll find that the other car has to be insured before your Quinn policy will cover it, to stop people doing as you describe above. Your insurance will cover you to drive other cars with the owners permission (3rd party coverage only and only if the car in question is insured).

Might want to check your facts before telling people to do something that would leave them driving around uninsured.

You need their permission, and its 3rd party, and the cover is provided as long as you youself are not insured on the other car, thats a condition also.

And do you really expect someone will take the advise off someone without checking it out themselves first?

I've had conversations with Quinn ppl about this and they insist it is the case.

Keith C

Stark wrote:

In my policy, it says you can drive any car once it's registered to another person. The bit about being registered to someone other than you is the bit most people seem to miss. They think they can buy a 1.0 Micra and a Ferrari and be insured on the Micra sitting in the garage while they drive around 24/7 in the Ferrari. I think there's also a reasonable usage clause which says that you have to be driving the insured car most of the time. ie: even if Daddy owns the fancy car, you're only covered for occasional use of it.

Its also Third party only cover which means any damage done to the car your driving, you pay for out of your own pocket. So if you have a micra insured & drive Daddy's ferrari, as an extension of your insurance, then cause €45k worth of damage by hitting a lampost, You have to foot the €45k bill.

Noelie

Cion&#225 wrote: »

You need their permission, and its 3rd party, and the cover is provided as long as you youself are not insured on the other car, thats a condition also.

And do you really expect someone will take the advise off someone without checking it out themselves first?

I've had conversations with Quinn ppl about this and they insist it is the case.

I think you'll find it's not the case. The other car HAS to be insured before your policy carries over onto the car.


Edit

After looking at Quinns website this point seems a little unclear with them
Link

1 the vehicle is not owned by your employer or hired to them
under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2 you currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
3 the use of the vehicle is covered on the certificate of
insurance;
4 cover is not provided by any other insurance;
5 you have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
6 the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition; and
7 you still have your vehicle and it has not been damaged
beyond cost-effective repair.

#3 doesn't state which insurance, yours or the other car.And #4 seems to say the car isn't to be insured

Cionád

Noelie wrote:

I think you'll find it's not the case. The other car HAS to be insured before your policy carries over onto the car.

Yea, but YOU dont have to be insured on it yourself.

Noelie

Cion&#225 wrote: »

Yea, but YOU dont have to be insured on it yourself.

no YOU don't but who ever you've the car registered too has to insure it, seeing as they will have Zero NCB the cost of insurance might not make this technique cost effective. As you will be paying your insurance and theirs.

Cionád

Noelie wrote:

no YOU don't but who ever you've the car registered too has to insure it, seeing as they will have Zero NCB the cost of insurance might not make this technique cost effective. As you will be paying your insurance and theirs.

I agree it will be expensive.

If she wants to drive the TT thats her only option though, and she better pray she does not crash.

Stark

Noelie wrote:

no YOU don't but who ever you've the car registered too has to insure it,

Where does it say this? I've studied my policy documentation in detail and it says nothing about the other car having to be insured. Anyone I've heard from who has rang QD has said the other car doesn't need to be insured. My dad's with AXA and had to drive my car home when I bought it as I wasn't insured yet and they told him that it was fine. People seem to be pulling this rule about the other car needing to have insurance out of their heads.

Noelie wrote:

#3 doesn't state which insurance, yours or the other car.And #4 seems to say the car isn't to be insured

They mean your certificate of insurance. It might be explicitly clarified at the start of the policy section where they clarify terms such as "the insured"*. By #4, I think they mean that if you're a named driver on that car's policy, then the owner's insurance company are the ones who need to pay out in a crash, not QD.

* Edit: Checked my insurance policy. "The certificate of insurance" is mentioned in the definitions section:

F The certificate of insurance – the document which is
evidence that you have taken out the insurance needed
by law.

I put the bold in myself as I think that's the bit that makes it explicitly clear that they're referring to your certificate of insurance.

Our man in Havana

Another downfall here would be the tax disc on the other car. If it is not taxed the Gardai can seize it. Also you cannot tax it as you are not the RO and if the RO has no insurance on it he can't tax it either.

Another point, if driving under this supposed loophole, you will not a have a valid insurance disc on the car either. This will cause problems with the law again.

Stark

Apparently you can take the insurance disc out of your own car and put it into the other car to cover that. I know a family who were taking their daughter's car out for occasional spins while she was away for a year, and that's what they were instructed to do.

Noelie

Stark, I'm named on my g/f's policy and it states only the policy holder(Her) can drive another car if it is insured by the owner. Her policy is with Eagal Star or Royal Sun & Allience, I assumed QD would have the same conditions. But i could be wrong about that. for my Bike insurance I can only ride other bikes if they are insured by the owner.
So this could all depend on the company I guess.

sonners

Cion&#225 wrote: »

Do it online and you'll have no trouble providing you have a full license, and its not a t-bar/convertible.

I did do the quote online, full licence for 4 years and 3 yrs NCB and they did'nt quote me, the operator then rang me and told me why.

I dont need to do any of this buy another car, swap insurance malarky, I have numerous other insurance companies quoting me, I was just talking about my dealings with Quinn Direct.

Also the rule about only being allowed to drive other cars if the other car is insured does exist on certain policies, thats the way it is on my policy with Hibernian. I can drive ANY car (no restriction on engine size) as long as I have permission from the registered owner and the registered owner has the car insured, I am only covered as TPFT on other cars though.

Noelie

Keith C wrote:

Its also Third party only cover which means any damage done to the car your driving, you pay for out of your own pocket. So if you have a micra insured & drive Daddy's ferrari, as an extension of your insurance, then cause €45k worth of damage by hitting a lampost, You have to foot the €45k bill.

what if Daddy has his car covered fully comp, can't he claim on his own insurance and then have his son pay him the difference in loosing his NCB, surely that way it wouldn't cost anything near 45K

Keith C

sonners wrote:

I am only covered as TPFT on other cars though.

Its Third party only, fire & theft of the other car isn't covered.

layke

jank wrote:

Is it legal to refuse to insure a particular car because of its make and engine size?

Rang quinn direct about getting a quote and they refused because my 1.8 MR2 is a hi spec machine "my arse!"

Anyway is this legal?

http://www.brittoninsurance.com

Just did an online quote :: Britton Insurance is pleased to offer a Premium of €885.93

I'm 25 full lic and 3 years ncb. I guessed on a 1.8 petrol 2001 model.

Got a quote on a Prelude 2.2Vtec for €925. Quinn on the other hand won't quote me above a 2.0L non vtec engine. Look, if they won't play the game give then the two fingers and never buy from them again. Until people start boycotting them they won't change.

Stark

Noelie wrote:

what if Daddy has his car covered fully comp, can't he claim on his own insurance and then have his son pay him the difference in loosing his NCB, surely that way it wouldn't cost anything near 45K

That would be fraud and would only work anyway if Junior crashed the car with no witnesses around.

sonners

Keith C wrote:

Its Third party only, fire & theft of the other car isn't covered.

Oh yeah, forgot that'd be covered by the owners insurance, sorry

Mitch Connor

Noelie wrote:

what if Daddy has his car covered fully comp, can't he claim on his own insurance and then have his son pay him the difference in loosing his NCB, surely that way it wouldn't cost anything near 45K

Yes, if he lies and says he hit whatever was damaged.

Eoin

Stark wrote:

That would be fraud and would only work anyway if Junior crashed the car with no witnesses around.

That's what I thought at first, but I think he may mean open drive insurance.

Keith C

Noelie wrote:

what if Daddy has his car covered fully comp, can't he claim on his own insurance and then have his son pay him the difference in loosing his NCB, surely that way it wouldn't cost anything near 45K

Daddy wasn't driving the car at the time so that won't work, any comment after that is fraud

Bit slow ctahcing up, someone got their before me!

daedalus2097

Stark wrote:

In my policy, it says you can drive any car once it's registered to another person. The bit about being registered to someone other than you is the bit most people seem to miss. They think they can buy a 1.0 Micra and a Ferrari and be insured on the Micra sitting in the garage while they drive around 24/7 in the Ferrari. I think there's also a reasonable usage clause which says that you have to be driving the insured car most of the time. ie: even if Daddy owns the fancy car, you're only covered for occasional use of it.

Ah, I took it to mean once you've insured your car, you can change it to a much bigger car and they have to insure you on it... My mistake, the driving other people's cars bit makes more sense.

jank

they are likely have to refused a quote because the MR2 is a convertible

Yep thats why as far as I know.
Axa or is it Alliance will refuse any convertible even though they may be the a 206 CC or a Micra CC. For **** sake like!

Anyway thanks for all the replies. I thought the insurance company were a bit more car friendly these days especially as one gets older but I suppose they keep changing the goal posts.

Britton Insurance seems to have given me the best quote out of the lot afaik.
Anybody know what perks they offer like windscreen cover, step back and breakdown assistance?

Del2005

Noelie wrote:

what if Daddy has his car covered fully comp, can't he claim on his own insurance and then have his son pay him the difference in loosing his NCB, surely that way it wouldn't cost anything near 45K

On this can the person who crashes not use their insurance for the other parties and the owner not claim on their fully comp for damage to the car. I always assumed thats how fully comp worked, ie no mater what happens you have the car insured for ANYTHING(bar acts of god).

OKenora

no mater what happens you have the car insured for ANYTHING(bar acts of god).

Yes thats how it should work, but only if the car is in the posession of an insured party. If daddy wanted to claim then he would either have to have son insured on the policy, so the TP section of sons policy makes no difference or he would have to say that son stole the car......

Del2005

OKenora wrote:

Yes thats how it should work, but only if the car is in the posession of an insured party. If daddy wanted to claim then he would either have to have son insured on the policy, so the TP section of sons policy makes no difference or he would have to say that son stole the car......

Sorry for going OT here. But say if I was driving someone else car with my 3rd party extension cover and they where in the car with me. If we where in a crash would my 3rd party cover the 3rd party and their fully comp cover their car?