Quinn, If they go out of Business this year...

Beta Ray Bill

What will happen peoples policies come renewal time with a different insurer?

I and many others are facing a big problem

Quinn are known for insuring high performance vehicles and young drivers.

I am seriously considering buying a Mitsubishi Evo MR FQ400 this year from the UK.

However I am only 27. Previously on my Evo 5 I was insured with Quinn and Quinn were the only people that would quote me less than 2200. (most would not even quote me at all!)

There are a a lot of young people in there 20's that drive sports cars and I would imagine 95% of them are insured with Quinn because they cannot get a quote else where.

What's going to happen to these people?
Quinn in administration has thrown a BIG spanner in the works for me.

Anyone else concerned about this situation?

Abelloid

They'll all have to revert to Glanzas 'with 1.3 on the logbook'. Waaaaah.

B00MSTICK

I fall into the "in his 20's and drives a sports car" demographic and yes I am worried.

No one would quote me at all (besides Quinn) but I'm hoping now that I have another years NCB and a year older that I might get some luck.

My renewal's in 2 months so I think they'll still be around then.

If my premium goes up again, through no fault of my own, I may have to sell anyway....

Cuddlesworth

grahambo wrote: »

Anyone else concerned about this situation?

I'm concerned about the fact that after years of sitting on his ass, the financial regulator now decided to step in due to a liquidity problem in a company after years of looking the other way. In a company which faced a small chance of problems and were working quickly towards solving it.

Questions are going to be asked, but not towards Quinn.

Seth Brundle

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'm concerned about the fact that after years of sitting on his ass, the financial regulator now decided to step in due to a liquidity problem in a company after years of looking the other way. In a company which faced a small chance of problems and were working quickly towards solving it.

Questions are going to be asked, but not towards Quinn.

1. we have had a different regulator since Pat Neary quit in Jan 09. However, the current regulator probably should have gone in long ago.
2. Quinn Group are in deep trouble.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0331/1224267401140.html
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/emmet-oliver-quinn-insurance-was-indulged-for-far-too-long-2120420.html

Gophur

grahambo wrote: »

.................

I and many others are facing a big problem

..........................

There IS no problem, it's business as usual.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'm concerned about the fact that after years of sitting on his ass, the financial regulator now decided to step in due to a liquidity problem in a company after years of looking the other way. In a company which faced a small chance of problems and were working quickly towards solving it.

Questions are going to be asked, but not towards Quinn.

It's fact that the FR has only just been made aware of the situation and it's all of QUINN's doing. The profitable Insurance Company was being used to guarantee all sorts of loans all over the place, without disclosing the fact. Hardly fair to blame the FR when a company is deliberately being underhand with their business dealings.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

......................... In a company which faced a small chance of problems and were working quickly towards solving it.
....................

I don't know where you got this from but it's far from the truth. QUINN over stated it's liquidity by €460m. That, in itself, is a big problem.

Vertakill

grahambo wrote: »

What will happen peoples policies come renewal time with a different insurer?

I and many others are facing a big problem

Quinn are known for insuring high performance vehicles and young drivers.

I am seriously considering buying a Mitsubishi Evo MR FQ400 this year from the UK.

However I am only 27. Previously on my Evo 5 I was insured with Quinn and Quinn were the only people that would quote me less than 2200. (most would not even quote me at all!)

There are a a lot of young people in there 20's that drive sports cars and I would imagine 95% of them are insured with Quinn because they cannot get a quote else where.

What's going to happen to these people?
Quinn in administration has thrown a BIG spanner in the works for me.

Anyone else concerned about this situation?

Try out travellers Graham + Boomstick and see what they say, if you haven't tried already. They were surprisingly good for me.
I went through 123.ie and the best (only) quote was with travellers.

When I got this quote of 1990eur, I was 23yo, 3NCB, 0 points, 0 claims on a 02' 350Z.
It's now gone to 1550eur with me a year older and +1 more NCB.

I know the Z and the Evo are probably not at the same levels of risk but I imagine it would balance out seeing as you're a few years wiser than me.

jimmycrackcorm

The only problem facing Quinn Insurance is if there is a mass disaster where they have to pay out an incredible number of claims. Unless we get a Haiti style earthquake, then this is a very unlikely occurrence. The point of Administration is to run the business according to the regulations, it does not mean that the company is in financial trouble in actual day-to-day terms. Quinn is well covered for normal and typical claims use.

CoDy1

There is nothing to worry about here, Quinn are not the last word when it comes to younger drivers, sports cars and decent premiums, as Vertakill mentioned, you will have to look a bit harder or go through brokers. There are plenty of insurers in Ireland who will be glad to take your money!

conor-mr2

Good to hear because Im with Quinn Direct . 31 Full No claims Bonus and driving an MR2 Turbo at the mo.

Ironically Im moving to buy an FQ320MR in the next few weeks. Im interested to see what figure Quinn are gonna quote me!

vectra

Funny thing this has happened
I got a1997 - 1.3 civic foir my son last January
Most companies wouldnt quote him even under me as a named driver ( he is just 18 on a provisional )
Some quotes were in excess of 6k
Many were bordering 4.2k

My local agent who is a good friend of mine could not come lower than 3160..

Quinn did 1559 TPFT with windscreen cover
Comp would have been 1950

For something to do yesterday I tried 3 places.

Axa

Avia

Bestquote < My Buddy

All 3 quoted in the region of 1400 for TPFT
and
wait for it
Full Comp for under 1600...!! :eek:

How ironic is this?

My own car was 308 last year
This year it is 374

So,
Has insurance gone up or down :rolleyes:

L1011

123 will quote most of the "quinn-only" cars since they moved to being tied agents of Travelers rather than a broker. They're minorly (7-8% or so) cheaper for me than Quinn were, vs. the next cheapest quote being 35%+ more expensive than Quinn.

ShadowHearth

so right... i just hear of this a few mins ago... i got insurance with quin-direct, renewel this month, will there be even renewal? Or i jump to anather company now?

markpb

ShadowHearth wrote: »

so right... i just hear of this a few mins ago... i got insurance with quin-direct, renewel this month, will there be even renewal? Or i jump to anather company now?

They're still operating as normal for now (and probably will for months while they try to find a buyer).

Atomic Pineapple

123.ie seem to have taken alot of cars off there books lately though, some cars I could have got great quotes on 6 months ago they wont even quote me on

Beta Ray Bill

Thanks for the replies guys.

Some interesting posts about finding cheaper insurance else where.

I think the issue is though, not the premium itself but moreso the fact that If one of the other insurance companies fail to quote you then hances are the rest will fail to too. In this case what anyone would do, would be to ring quinn.

But if Quinn is gone then what do ya do?

Bare in mind, If Quinn did go bust then the rest would automatically raise their premiums as

A) they no longer have to compete with Quinn's low premiums
There will be a flood of people looking for insurance because quinn will no longer be in operation.

I have always said that I think 3rd party insurance should be included in the price of Fuel. that way people an go to the insurance companies if they require fully comp cover.

It would also insure that everyone is Insured and that the ammount of insurance paid is fair.

Cuddlesworth

grahambo wrote: »

I have always said that I think 3rd party insurance should be included in the price of Fuel. that way people an go to the insurance companies if they require fully comp cover.

It would also insure that everyone is Insured and that the ammount of insurance paid is fair.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how insurance works.

SV

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how insurance works.

Enlighten us.

Beta Ray Bill

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how insurance works.

I mean do away with 3rd party cover from private businesses and have the state cover it. the state could then pay for claims etc via a small price increase on petrol/diesel. But only 3rd party cover. IE if you hit someone your coverd.
But if you wrap your car around a tree though no ones fault but your own, then you're not covered.

oldyouth

grahambo wrote: »

I mean do away with 3rd party cover from private businesses and have the state cover it. the state could then pay for claims etc via a small price increase on petrol/diesel. But only 3rd party cover. IE if you hit someone your coverd.
But if you wrap your car around a tree though no ones fault but your own, then you're not covered.

The system could work quite well in fact. All 3rd party claims could be paid out of a surcharge on fuel and you purchase own vehicle cover from Insurers. The cost would be minimal as the bulk of current insurance premiums goes towards 3rd party awards and the legal costs in establishing liability

swiss

grahambo wrote: »

I mean do away with 3rd party cover from private businesses and have the state cover it. the state could then pay for claims etc via a small price increase on petrol/diesel. But only 3rd party cover. IE if you hit someone your coverd.
But if you wrap your car around a tree though no ones fault but your own, then you're not covered.

This is a bad idea. Let me explain why.

Insurers charge different premiums because of differing risk levels. They have statistical models which give a likely risk of accident or claim based on all sorts of criteria.

If instead you propose to have a flat charge on fuel to cover the payouts required in the case of accident or injury, two things will happen. Firstly, you are effectively equalising the risk amongst everybody. Mile for mile, the implication is that the 30 something with 10 years accident free, driving a modest family hatchback is as risky as a 19 year old on a provisional driving a souped up sports car. Based on the likely payouts of this fund for these two demographs, one group is going to overpay and the other underpay for that risk.

The second effect would be to create a type of driving moral hazard, insofar as if the cost of your premium doesn't change according to your risk or driving history, you have no direct financial incentive to be a safe driver. You will not be financially punished for your recklessness, as you may be through an insurance company through having to pay a higher premium.

I don't think the current system is perfect, there are big discrepancies in premiums and it is very much up to the individual to shop around for the best quote (I myself got quoted just today for the renewal of my own premium at a cost of just over €1k). But any suggestion for reforming the insurance sector should take into account these considerations.

mickdw

That could never work. How do you load the crazy drivers? What penalty is there to teach them if they write off someones 100k merc that they run into or cause a huge injury claim?
Your plan doesnt look at that at all & so the clown in the 100 quid fiesta can continue to do all the damage while paying a tiny amount as his car is easy on fuel.

If we had some form of state insurance system, it would be all bad imo as it would grow fat & inefficient.

Beta Ray Bill

swiss wrote: »

This is a bad idea. Let me explain why.

Insurers charge different premiums because of differing risk levels. They have statistical models which give a likely risk of accident or claim based on all sorts of criteria.

If instead you propose to have a flat charge on fuel to cover the payouts required in the case of accident or injury, two things will happen. Firstly, you are effectively equalising the risk amongst everybody. Mile for mile, the implication is that the 30 something with 10 years accident free, driving a modest family hatchback is as risky as a 19 year old on a provisional driving a souped up sports car. Based on the likely payouts of this fund for these two demographs, one group is going to overpay and the other underpay for that risk.

The second effect would be to create a type of driving moral hazard, insofar as if the cost of your premium doesn't change according to your risk or driving history, you have no direct financial incentive to be a safe driver. You will not be financially punished for your recklessness, as you may be through an insurance company through having to pay a higher premium.

I don't think the current system is perfect, there are big discrepancies in premiums and it is very much up to the individual to shop around for the best quote (I myself got quoted just today for the renewal of my own premium at a cost of just over €1k). But any suggestion for reforming the insurance sector should take into account these considerations.

A very good point

However your counter argument also has issues

For example,

The 19 year old with the souped up car has a crash, There are young men all over ireland (espcially in the country) who write off their sports cars all the time, most of the time it's into a wall or a ditch.

Now, If the driver has only 3rd party insurance, he gets nothing for his car. he is down €9,000 he will not be getting another for a while.... a LONG while! This will be incentive enough for him to not crash again.

If the drver was insured full comp, his premium will go up next year (if he chooses to take it) but not by much as he is not forced to take it. He then will have also learned a lesson. Fully comp Insurance = good thing. And that he should have it if possible. And i he annot afford it then he needs to be careful

The incentive would not be to reduce the hit on your pocket every year, instead it would be not to lose your car.

Beta Ray Bill

mickdw wrote: »

That could never work. How do you load the crazy drivers? What penalty is there to teach them if they write off someones 100k merc that they run into or cause a huge injury claim?
Your plan doesnt look at that at all & so the clown in the 100 quid fiesta can continue to do all the damage while paying a tiny amount as his car is easy on fuel.

If we had some form of state insurance system, it would be all bad imo as it would grow fat & inefficient.

If they Keep crashing, just ban them from driving. Simples

swiss

grahambo wrote: »

A very good point

However your counter argument also has issues

<snip>.

This reasoning has some underlying assumptions I would question.

The first is that most young men (probably the highest risk category) write off their car by crashing into a wall or a ditch. I really don't know if this is the case, perhaps it is, but I'm also willing to wager that some of those accidents also involve other people, which invoke payouts from this pot into which every motorist pays. Lets take this assumption as given, and say for the sake of argument that most of the crashes don't involve other people. This would certainly reduce the risk disparity in financial terms between safe motorists and less safe ones, but the point still remains.

As you may have guessed, I picked the archetype of the 19 year old with the provisional driving a souped up sports car deliberately to make a point, but it's also very possible that younger drivers would drive the cheap kind of bangers that wouldn't be hard to replace. My first car on a provisional was a Clio, for example. I will accept these cars are probably less dangerous anyway, it's hard to rev those cars up high and drive fast for example. (The damn thing had trouble getting to 80kph!).

I also don't understand why, in the event of an insured driver crashing, the premium loading wouldn't be as great in this scheme as it would be currently. The premium may not be as high, but he'll still pay for the "3rd party" part of the insurance through the fuel levy and the fully comprehensive part will be jacked up. I see no reason why insurance companies would reduce that loading.

L1011

TP on fuel works in other places, though - how do the Australian states that provide it (with their lower driving age, and youth driving culture) prevent the awful occurances you're predicting?

ShadowHearth

maybe lets cut the Bull**** on that idea, becouse it will newer be approved, so you all just waisting time.

what is important: what should people do who allready have policies with them, and people who still getting qoutes with them. how it will hit the avarage joe in ireland ( again ).


discuss...

Beta Ray Bill

ShadowHearth wrote: »

maybe lets cut the Bull**** on that idea, becouse it will newer be approved, so you all just waisting time.

quite true!

ShadowHearth wrote: »

what is important: what should people do who allready have policies with them, and people who still getting qoutes with them. how it will hit the avarage joe in ireland ( again ).

discuss...

I dunno what will happen?
I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

Most likely thing that will happen though is that we will get shafted!

Mr Benevolent

No matter what happens, the policies won't be affected. Some other company will buy Quinn's insurance book if the worst comes to the worst. That said, if Quinn survives, expect your insurance premiums to go through the ceiling...

vectra

vectra wrote: »

I got a1997 - 1.3 civic foir my son last January
Most companies wouldnt quote him even under me as a named driver ( he is just 18 on a provisional )
Some quotes were in excess of 6k
Many were bordering 4.2k

......................

My own car was 308 last year

In fairness most insurers don't take on folks that are not being truthful about who the main driver of the car is.

ShadowHearth

RoverJames wrote: »

In fairness most insurers don't take on folks that are not being truthful about who the main driver of the car is.

2 words " honda civic" did not helped with qoutes aswell...

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

In fairness most insurers don't take on folks that are not being truthful about who the main driver of the car is.

you point is??

vectra

vectra wrote: »

you point is??

My point is that the companies that quoted you or ye €6000 may not have wanted your business, also when you have another car and are insuring a 2nd one with your son as a named driver it is very obvious to companies that you are trying to get insured fraudulently (your son would be the main driver of the Civic, you said in your post that you bought it for him and that you have your own car). Instead of telling you this or refusing to quote they quote you a looney figure so you will f off.

Other companies do quote for this but should someon ever claim on the policy if he is a named driver and the insurance company want to be awkward then the fact he is the main driver can prove very problematic, it's called fraud.

MojoMaker

The average wacker in the street with a souped up civic hardly gives two f*cks about the "rules" though does he/she.

Graduate through your cars like we all had to do and quit trying to run before you can walk - or in motoring terms - speed before you can drive.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

My point is that the companies that quoted you or ye €6000 may not have wanted your business, also when you have another car and are insuring a 2nd one with your son as a named driver it is very obvious to companies that you are trying to get insured fraudulently (your son would be the main driver of the Civic, you said in your post that you bought it for him and that you have your own car). Instead of telling you this or refusing to quote they quote you a looney figure so you will f off.

Other companies do quote for this but should someon ever claim on the policy if he is a named driver and the insurance company want to be awkward then the fact he is the main driver can prove very problematic, it's called fraud.

Who ever said I am NOT the main driver?
I use this car now probably more than I use my own one to simply keep the mileage low on mine to sell.
At that time my son will have his Driving test done ( and by his drivinf standard will have it passed ) he then will become the policy holder.
Remember the old saying "NEVER ASSUME"

MojoMaker wrote: »

The average wacker in the street with a souped up civic hardly gives two f*cks about the "rules" though does he/she.

Graduate through your cars like we all had to do and quit trying to run before you can walk - or in motoring terms - speed before you can drive.

Why do you think every civic owner is a wacker ?
my son is all but a Grade "A" student ,, Never "Hangs out" Never gets involved with "Muppets".. wants to get on in life with no issues.
Do you "Syereotype" everyone ?:rolleyes:

vectra

vectra wrote: »

Who ever said I am NOT the main driver?
I use this car now probably more than I use my own one to simply keep the mileage low on mine to sell.
At that time my son will have his Driving test done ( and by his drivinf standard will have it passed ) he then will become the policy holder.
Remember the old saying "NEVER ASSUME"

To be honest I couldn't be arsed going through your previous posts but saying that you bought the car for your son is a good pointer that he would be the main driver. If you expect us to swallow the fact that as soon as he passes a test that he will start paying wads out on insurance when he isn't willing to do so on a provisional as soon as someone mentions fraud you must think we are all fairly slow.

You have also told someone in another thread that him getting his car insured in his Dad's name is not illegal :rolleyes:

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

To be honest I couldn't be arsed going through your previous posts

That never assume irked me somewhat, here you go :rolleyes:

vectra wrote: »

Sons Civic EK2 Failed NCT today.

vectra wrote: »

Whats the verdict/opinions on one of these?
I know I have started topics on other car options for me but each seemed to have their pitfalls along the way.

I was just loomking at one of these on Carzone and they look quite attractive.
My main gripe would be petrol consumption ..!!

I would say 98% of my driving is town stop/start.
Would it guzzle the juice?
I know I would not spare the V-Tech either

vectra wrote: »

OK
As the heading says.
I know it is called DSG in the VAG group.
What is it/similar system called in other makes?

Reason I ask is i planned on buying an Octavia Vrs Diesel this year.
But
My back problem is getting progressively worse to the extent that it is often unbearable to press the clutch. Hence the DSG option
Unbfortunately the Vrs with DSG is out of my price range. what other options are open to me?
I have considered looking at a Leon FR petrol. with DSG
what are the views on these?
I notice quite a few 2008 models on Carzone with very low mileage.
Is this telling me "STAY AWAY"? Are they a bad reseller?

Back to original Q.
What other models could I look at?
cheers

B.T.W.
I do qualify for the VRT/VAT deduction.

vectra wrote: »

I must bring my sons car for test in 2 weeks
I also must bring identification.
His car is registered in my name so i would assume bring my identification;)

vectra wrote: »

My son has a 1997 Honda Civic EK2 ( 3 door hatch )
Dirvers electric window is stuck
Flick the button and you can hear a little click sound. ( I assume this is the regulator or whatever it is called )

Question is:
Would a motor from a different model civic fit?
eg:
1995 civic Lsi 4 door ?

vectra wrote: »

Going looking at 2 cars tomorow for my son ( At Last )

One is a nice clean 97 Civic 1.4 NCT'd * Taxed

The other is a 99 Corolla G6. 1.3 Nice clean car again with Nct & Tax.

Both are around the 100k mark.

While I know the Corolla is 2 years newer.
Which one would be the better car?
Both are within €300 of each other so price is not an issue
Insurance is withing €40 of each other as well.

Thanks

Your son's Civic is in your name, you are selling your own but planning on buying another, have considered an Accord and a DSG Octy, DSG appeals as you have back trouble and fancy an auto. All of the above would be great reading if your insurer wanted to determine was the Civic your's or not. 'Tis obvious to all to see that it is your son's. About him passing the test first time too, you know the old saying, never assume

(In saying that I hope he does pass first time, but you shouldn't wander around telling folks that obtaining insurance fraudulently is the way to go.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

That never assume irked me somewhat, here you go :rolleyes:














Your son's Civic is in your name, you are selling your own but planning on buying another, have considered an Accord and a DSG Octy, DSG appeals as you have back trouble and fancy an auto. All of the above would be great reading if your insurer wanted to determine was the Civic your's or not. 'Tis obvious to all to see that it is your son's. About him passing the test first time too, you know the old saying, never assume

(In saying that I hope he does pass first time, but you shouldn't wander around telling folks that obtaining insurance fraudulently is the way to go.

Simple matter of words to say "The civic is called my sons as he is not allowed drive my better car" Both cars were purchased by me and both cars are registered to me.
Can you Prove different?
"Never Assume"
On the other topic
Octavia Vrs is my first choice as a replacement for my "Better Car"
Unfortunately DSG is a no go as I simply could not afford it now that I have to run 2 cars :pac:

You've obviously no experience of dealing with insurance companies when they don't want to pay out, they'd eat you alive with this sh1t to be honest. If they are both your cars why would he be getting insured on one in his own name in the near future.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

You've obviously no experience of dealing with insurance companies when they don't want to pay out, they'd eat you alive with this sh1t to be honest. If they are both your cars why would he be getting insured on one in his own name in the near future.

Simple really.
But you probably dont want to be proved wrong
I will gift it to him when he passes his driving test.
Oh,
and by the way
I have more experience than you could imagine dealing with insurance companies that dont want to pay up
Trust me,

jdivision

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In a company which faced a small chance of problems and were working quickly towards solving it.

Questions are going to be asked, but not towards Quinn.

The group and family have lost E3bn on shares, they were putting forward assets they actually couldn't. That's not a small problem, it's a huge one. These guys have been lying for years.

vectra

vectra wrote: »

Simple really.
But you probably dont want to be proved wrong
I will gift it to him when he passes his driving test.
Oh,
and by the way
I have more experience than you could imagine dealing with insurance companies that dont want to pay up
Trust me,

I honestly don't mind if you proved me wrong, but you, I, your son and everyone who has read this thread knows that you won't be proving me wrong. You're not the sort of chap I would trust to be honest, you have advised a young chap on boards that it's fine to lie to insurance companies to obtain cheap insurance.

MojoMaker

MojoMaker wrote: »

The average wacker in the street with a souped up civic hardly gives two f*cks about the "rules" though does he/she.

It seems you are correct

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

I honestly don't mind if you proved me wrong, but you, I, your son and everyone who has read this thread knows that you won't be proving me wrong. You're not the sort of chap I would trust to be honest, you have advised a young chap on boards that it's fine to lie to insurance companies to obtain cheap insurance.

Thee you go,,,
Wrong again.
I bought this car.
It is registered in my name..Insured in my name..
Prove to me otherwise..
Thee isnt a court in Ireland that could prove different.

Possession in 9 points of the law remember.
The Civic is Mine as long as it is registered to me.. End of..!

I have not a care in the world if you trust me or not.
My choice of WHO I say has my car and who Does NOT have my car is entirely MY choice..
The Log Book (s) say both cars are mine.
The insurance certs say both policies are in my name.

What's your problem with that

You could print off each and every post I made here and it would not be worth the paper it is printed on.
I hold the trump card with the Log books against you "Hearsay"

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

It seems you are correct

Are you specifying Souped up Civic's or Non Souped up Civics ?
Or are you making the assumption all Civic owners are the same.

vectra

vectra wrote: »

Thee you go,,,
Wrong again.
I bought this car.
It is registered in my name..Insured in my name..
Prove to me otherwise..
Thee isnt a court in Ireland that could prove different.

Possession in 9 points of the law remember.
The Civic is Mine as long as it is registered to me.. End of..!

I have not a care in the world if you trust me or not.
My choice of WHO I say has my car and who Does NOT have my car is entirely MY choice..
The Log Book (s) say both cars are mine.
The insurance certs say both policies are in my name.

What's your problem with that

You could print off each and every post I made here and it would not be worth the paper it is printed on.
I hold the trump card with the Log books against you "Hearsay"

Realistically the sh1t will only hit the fan if your son has an accident in the Civic, I 100% don't wish that to happen so you can hold your trump card if you like. I've made my point, the other chap has decided to confirm with the insurance folks what is the correct way to go with main driver etc so I'm happy out.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

Realistically the sh1t will only hit the fan if your son has an accident in the Civic, I 100% don't wish that to happen so you can hold your trump card if you like. I've made my point, the other chap has decided to confirm with the insurance folks what is the correct way to go with main driver etc so I'm happy out.

Well, as in my other post, I have pointed ot to you and others that the (If ) he has an accident I will be with him as he is on a learner permit. So would be well covered in that instance.;) so no need to worry about and=y $hit hitting any fan