Legality of Garage Insurance

Beta Ray Bill

Hi All

Driving around today and I saw a young lad that I know of driving around in an 03 STi. Now I know for a fact hes driving the car around on garage insurance and I also know hes 17!!!!

Surely that cant be legal.

a 17 year old on a +300bhp car?

whats are the restrictions of garage insurance?

Turner

I presume that it is used during the garage office hours and thats its only in the course of testing/moving garage vehicles.

It would state all the conditions on the policy certificate.

Beta Ray Bill

Well hes out in it now! LOL

CPG

grahambo wrote: »

Hi All

Driving around today and I saw a young lad that I know of driving around in an 03 STi. Now I know for a fact hes driving the car around on garage insurance and I also know hes 17!!!!

Surely that cant be legal.

a 17 year old on a +300bhp car?

whats are the restrictions of garage insurance?

So when you find out for sure , you will report him?
Whats the point of your post, I dont understand.

Beta Ray Bill

CPG wrote: »

So when you find out for sure , you will report him?
Whats the point of your post, I dont understand.

I just wanted to know if it was legal to drive a car domestically on garage insurance

Chief sorted me out

CPG

grahambo wrote: »

I just wanted to know if it was legal to drive a car domestically on garage insurance

Chief sorted me out

Ahh K, so I take it your a mechanic wanting to get some garage insurance?

Beta Ray Bill

LOL nah mate

Im a DBA, insurance for me is 2200 but at least I get to drive my car outside of 9-5

Mr.Diagnostic

There are different levels of cover on different policys. It is possible for a 17 year old to be covered on any car for business, social and domestic.

Run_to_da_hills

Garage premiums should cover 24/7 356. because mechanics can be called out anytime of the day or night for a repair a breakdown. They wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on if that was not the case. Most garage policies I know will cover almost any make of car or van some cover motorcycles but most do not cover steam driven vehicles for some reason.

Henry Ford III

Garage policies can cover non specified vehicles and drivers.

For example "all cars and cover for all employees".

A total claim will only pay out a trade price btw.

Darragh29

grahambo wrote: »

I just wanted to know if it was legal to drive a car domestically on garage insurance

Chief sorted me out

Here's the funny bit...!!! Legally, a person working in the motor trade is allowed to drive your vehicle, ON YOUR INSURANCE POLICY, if you have left your vehicle in their care for any maintanence whatsoever. If you leave your car with me to be serviced or maintained, there is a clause in your insurance policy that says that I am allowed to drive it in a public place for the purposes of maintaining it, which also would require me to test drive your vehicle after working on it, (provided that I am ordinarily employed in the motor trade), and if I crash your car while I am doing this, it is your no claims bonus that goes out the window and it is your insurance policy that ends up cleaning up the mess! Any garage worth it's salt will have their own Motor Trade Road Risk policy in place so if there is a crash, your policy is completely unaffected. I know for a fact your man you are talking about is not insured on a Motor Trade Road Risk POlicy to drive that vehicle. Most insurance companies insist that the driver is over 25 and can only drive during business hours.

L-M

Garage insurance can be used for two types. One is for business hours only, aptly named "Business hours". The other type is Social Domestic and Pleasure insurance which can be used 24/7 365. This would be more so for people who work in garages that have company vehicles, and if sold they can just hop into another and drive away. Also to cover them to drive anything anywhere fully comp.

That lad obviously has some sort of trade insurance to be driving that car. A mechanic friend of mine has trade insurance with Britton and he's drivin a Berlingo and a few hundred brake Subaru. I think he's payin 2K, fully comp, but he has 5 yeats NCB

Mr.Diagnostic

Darragh29 wrote: »

Here's the funny bit...!!! Legally, a person working in the motor trade is allowed to drive your vehicle, ON YOUR INSURANCE POLICY, if you have left your vehicle in their care for any maintanence whatsoever. If you leave your car with me to be serviced or maintained, there is a clause in your insurance policy that says that I am allowed to drive it in a public place for the purposes of maintaining it, which also would require me to test drive your vehicle after working on it, (provided that I am ordinarily employed in the motor trade), and if I crash your car while I am doing this, it is your no claims bonus that goes out the window and it is your insurance policy that ends up cleaning up the mess! Any garage worth it's salt will have their own Motor Trade Road Risk policy in place so if there is a crash, your policy is completely unaffected. I know for a fact your man you are talking about is not insured on a Motor Trade Road Risk POlicy to drive that vehicle. Most insurance companies insist that the driver is over 25 and can only drive during business hours.

Sorry darragh, you are wrong there. The clause in most peoples policies that you refer to means that the policy holder is indemnified in the case of an accident arising from the upkeep of the car. It does not cover any mechanic to drive the car.

It is not possible for you to state that the 17 year old is not insured. I know of a 17 year old who is insured on a trade policy to drive for business, social, domestic and pleasure.

knifey_spoonie

As long as they are insured in social domestic and pleasure, he is covered, to put a 17 year on SDP on trade insurance aint going to be cheap i would estimate between 4-5k

Darragh29

Limerick-man wrote: »

Garage insurance can be used for two types. One is for business hours only, aptly named "Business hours". The other type is Social Domestic and Pleasure insurance which can be used 24/7 365. This would be more so for people who work in garages that have company vehicles, and if sold they can just hop into another and drive away. Also to cover them to drive anything anywhere fully comp.

That lad obviously has some sort of trade insurance to be driving that car. A mechanic friend of mine has trade insurance with Britton and he's drivin a Berlingo and a few hundred brake Subaru. I think he's payin 2K, fully comp, but he has 5 yeats NCB

Quinn Direct have an insurance product specifically for the motor trade that allows a policy holder to drive customers vehicles 24/7, up to a 12 tonne weight limit and a value limit of around 100K.

L-M

Darragh29 wrote: »

Quinn Direct have an insurance product specifically for the motor trade that allows a policy holder to drive customers vehicles 24/7, up to a 12 tonne weight limit and a value limit of around 100K.

How much is it though? And i'm sure there is some scam, i wouldn't use Quinn, only for a starter who wants cheap insurance.

Darragh29

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Sorry darragh, you are wrong there. The clause in most peoples policies that you refer to means that the policy holder is indemnified in the case of an accident arising from the upkeep of the car. It does not cover any mechanic to drive the car.

On the first point, the clause I refer to defines a person working on the vehicle as, "a person who is employed in the motor trade" and the activity that such a person might be involved in as", "the maintenance or upkeep of a private motor vehicle". I personally know of a garage in the Orwell Road area that gets customers to sign a consent form, exclusively for the purposes of having their mechanics insured to drive customers vehicles. Service indemnification leading from defective workmanship is a completely different matter. If a customer crashes a car because the car was let out of a garage after having brake pads fitted and those brake pads were fitted backwards, the insured would have to use their own policy. It might be the case where the insurance company would carry out an investigation and subsequently sue the garage, but you can't realistically argue that a person gets a set of brake pads fitted and then has a crash the following week and blames the garage.

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

It is not possible for you to state that the 17 year old is not insured. I know of a 17 year old who is insured on a trade policy to drive for business, social, domestic and pleasure.

Ok, I might have gone in at the deep end on this. I know the Gardai are up in arms recently because they have pulled lads in for driving what you might call "high performance cars" without insurance, only for the driver to pull out a Quinn Direct certificate of insurance or a set of trade plates, only for a Gardai to realise that your man just aint worth the hassle or the paperwork. Unfortunately we won't get to the bottom of this one until someone is killed and it ends up in the high court.

Darragh29

Limerick-man wrote: »

How much is it though? And i'm sure there is some scam, i wouldn't use Quinn, only for a starter who wants cheap insurance.

Well first of all it isn't cheap, it's fu*king 10k a year. Secondly, Quinn are the only company that will deal with you directly, this means a lot to me, I don't want to deal with a broker when I'm signing cheque for 10 grand for one years cover. Lastly, are you in the Motor Trade full time or are you just looking for a policy to drive whatever you want in??? The biggest problem that the motor trade has at the moment is probably the amount of yahoo hanger on-ers's driving on trade plates and not actually in the motor trade, driving up the price of insurance for those who are actually making a living in the motor trade. :rolleyes:

Mr.Diagnostic

Darragh29 wrote: »

On the first point, the clause I refer to defines a person working on the vehicle as, "a person who is employed in the motor trade" and the activity that such a person might be involved in as", "the maintenance or upkeep of a private motor vehicle". I personally know of a garage in the Orwell Road area that gets customers to sign a consent form, exclusively for the purposes of having their mechanics insured to drive customers vehicles. Service indemnification leading from defective workmanship is a completely different matter. If a customer crashes a car because the car was let out of a garage after having brake pads fitted and those brake pads were fitted backwards, the insured would have to use their own policy. It might be the case where the insurance company would carry out an investigation and subsequently sue the garage, but you can't realistically argue that a person gets a set of brake pads fitted and then has a crash the following week and blames the garage.

I know what you mean and I have read it a few times. I am also aware of a case where it was tested in court and have seen a letter from an insurance company that stated the owner of the car was indemnified by that clause not the mechanic.
I did not mean cover for faulty workmanship, just road risk.

L-M

Darragh29 wrote: »

Lastly, are you in the Motor Trade full time or are you just looking for a policy to drive whatever you want in??? The biggest problem that the motor trade has at the moment is probably the amount of yahoo hanger on-ers's driving on trade plates and not actually in the motor trade, driving up the price of insurance for those who are actually making a living in the motor trade. :rolleyes:

Lol i'm in the Motor Trade, i have my insurance, i don't need a trade plate. But i do see ur point

echo hotel

grahambo wrote: »

Hi All

Driving around today and I saw a young lad that I know of driving around in an 03 STi. Now I know for a fact hes driving the car around on garage insurance and I also know hes 17!!!!

Surely that cant be legal.

a 17 year old on a +300bhp car?

whats are the restrictions of garage insurance?

im 25 have garage insurance its a 24 7 365 days and i've got modified sports and performance cover, i'd say he has the same no age restriction either just need a full licence, i'd say he's paying big for it tho.

Darragh29

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

I know what you mean and I have read it a few times. I am also aware of a case where it was tested in court and have seen a letter from an insurance company that stated the owner of the car was indemnified by that clause not the mechanic.
I did not mean cover for faulty workmanship, just road risk.

I'm a bit confused with the situation above. If an insured is driving their own car, they are insured on their own policy. I hope you see where I'm coming from here, but the clause at issue here clearly covers a "person who is employed in the motor trade". I can't see a situation where a policy holder/ vehicle owner would need to use this particular clause...

Darragh29

echo hotel wrote: »

im 25 have garage insurance its a 24 7 365 days and i've got modified sports and performance cover, i'd say he has the same no age restriction either just need a full licence, i'd say he's paying big for it tho.

To be honest, its long overdue that insurance companies tighten up on people using trade insurance who are not working in the trade. What your describing above is cover on any vehicle which fits into the limits imposed by insurance companies, which are generally 12 tonne and 100K in value. Yeah, if you have a Skyline and a few other sets of wheels that are under 12 metric tonne and under 100K in value, then yeah, you have insurance. The only issue I have is that these policies are designed for people in the trade who rarely drive these suped up cars.

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote: »

To be honest, its long overdue that insurance companies tighten up on people using trade insurance who are not working in the trade. What your describing above is cover on any vehicle which fits into the limits imposed by insurance companies, which are generally 12 tonne and 100K in value. Yeah, if you have a Skyline and a few other sets of wheels that are under 12 metric tonne and under 100K in value, then yeah, you have insurance. The only issue I have is that these policies are designed for people in the trade who rarely drive these suped up cars.

My point is that if you are driving a Skyline, FTO or other such cars on a garage policy while not working in the motor trade, you are effectively screwing over those genuinely working in the trade for a crust.

Mr.Diagnostic

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm a bit confused with the situation above. If an insured is driving their own car, they are insured on their own policy. I hope you see where I'm coming from here, but the clause at issue here clearly covers a "person who is employed in the motor trade". I can't see a situation where a policy holder/ vehicle owner would need to use this particular clause...

An example of what it is designed to cover would be if a mechanic crashes a customers car into another car. The owner of the other car could sue to customer (as well as the mechanic).

echo hotel

Darragh29 wrote: »

To be honest, its long overdue that insurance companies tighten up on people using trade insurance who are not working in the trade. What your describing above is cover on any vehicle which fits into the limits imposed by insurance companies, which are generally 12 tonne and 100K in value. Yeah, if you have a Skyline and a few other sets of wheels that are under 12 metric tonne and under 100K in value, then yeah, you have insurance. The only issue I have is that these policies are designed for people in the trade who rarely drive these suped up cars.

i am a mechanic so sort of handy to have, but like i said it aint cheap it just means that young lads can get a qoute where insurance companies would normally laugh at them.

ninty9er

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Sorry darragh, you are wrong there. The clause in most peoples policies that you refer to means that the policy holder is indemnified in the case of an accident arising from the upkeep of the car. It does not cover any mechanic to drive the car.

It is not possible for you to state that the 17 year old is not insured. I know of a 17 year old who is insured on a trade policy to drive for business, social, domestic and pleasure.

+1. My aunt and cousins have garage "company cars" though none are directors and only 1 is an employee of the garage.

Darragh29

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

An example of what it is designed to cover would be if a mechanic crashes a customers car into another car. The owner of the other car could sue to customer (as well as the mechanic).

This is the problem with using this clause. The person who has been crashed into by the mechanic can claim, but there are still only two policy holders. The mechanic is not a policy holder. I see the point your making but I can't agree with it because if you are a customer and I'm a mechanic and I take your car with your permission and accidently crash it into a third party, that third party cannot claim of my insurance policy because I am not using the clause in my insurance policy to drive your car, I'm using the clause in your policy to drive your car. Going back to what you said earluer about the court case, yeah, maybe an insurance company will argue to the contrary, but say in the example I've given you above, I didn't have an insurance policy. Where are we then???

Darragh29

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

An example of what it is designed to cover would be if a mechanic crashes a customers car into another car. The owner of the other car could sue to customer (as well as the mechanic).

I see what you are saying, anyone can sue anyone at anytime. What I'm talking about is compliance with the Road Traffic Act. I see what you are saying though, I only know of a small number of garages that use this clause, you'd in reality be fu*ked if you had to use it because your name would be muck afterwards...

ninty9er

The way the law works here, claimants solicitors will start with whoever has the most capital and money behind them.....given public liability insurance for a workspace, I would assume the mechanic would be a solicitors first point of call in an accident as described above.

Mr.Diagnostic

Darragh29 wrote: »

, but say in the example I've given you above, I didn't have an insurance policy. Where are we then???

Thats the point of the clause. The customer is covered even though he was not driving or in control of the car.