cover to drive others cars

iamthest1g

hi lads

in my usual daily endevour to find cheaper insurance when eventually i switch from van to car i noticed that bestquote are offering cover to drive other cars on there comp policies. i was wondering what the rules/limits of cover are with these policies. say if i was to insure a 1200 punto for daily use and to have a more "sporting" model taxed and tested but uninsured in the garage for the sunday morning spin would this be covered by the policy or does the other car have to have comprehensive cover aswell.

Anan1

You can't own the other car. As for whether it needs its own cover too, that varies by ins co. Always assume you're uninsured until you have written proof that you are.

langdang

Usually the condition is that it's not in your name or your spouse's.

subway

depends on the policy, for example I'm TPFT thru chill and can drive any car as long as its not owned by me or someone named on my policy. the car just needs to be taxed and NCT'ed.
i was with hibernian a few years back and they required that the other car be insured also

Stark

The "other cars" cover is generally third party only cover as well. If you crash the "sporting model", it's coming out of your own pocket.

R.O.R

If you are driving the "Sporting" model under your own policy extension, it won't have a valid insurance disc on the window, as it's not insured elsewhere.

iamthest1g

does anyone know what the rules are regarding the people that bestquote use i.e campion brokers , ocallahan broker etc etc????

Jimdagym

iamthest1g wrote: »

does anyone know what the rules are regarding the people that bestquote use i.e campion brokers , ocallahan broker etc etc????

It doesn't matter who your broker is. I'm with campion but my policy is with RSA. It's their t&c's that count.

coylemj

Anan1 wrote: »

As for whether it needs its own cover too, that varies by ins co.

It doesn't 'vary' at all, no insurance company imposes that condition. We've been down this road umpteen times.

Misreading of various policies leads people to believe that the other car must be insured. What leads to the confusion is a condition which states that if they can claim under the other guy's insurance (if there is a policy) they must but ultimately if they have cover to drive 'other cars' and they fulfill the basic conditions (they don't own the car and have not hired it), their own insurance will cover them if the other guy's insurance doesn't or even if there no policy on the other car.

R.O.R

coylemj wrote: »

It doesn't 'vary' at all, no insurance company imposes that condition. We've been down this road umpteen times.

I read through my RSA policy document when 123 changed me from Travellers, and I'm pretty sure it states in there that the "other" car needs to be insured.

Wouldn't state the mortgage on it as it was a couple of months ago, but I'd be fairly certain.

langdang

coylemj wrote: »

It doesn't 'vary' at all, no insurance company imposes that condition. We've been down this road umpteen times.

Misreading of various policies leads people to believe that the other car must be insured. What leads to the confusion is a condition which states that if they can claim under the other guy's insurance (if there is a policy) they must but ultimately if they have cover to drive 'other cars' and they fulfill the basic conditions (they don't own the car and have not hired it), their own insurance will cover them if the other guy's insurance doesn't or even if there no policy on the other car.

Also, another thing that contributes to what I consider an insurance myth is that you would still be obliged (I believe) to display a valid insurance disc for that veh-hickle. But I don't think it affects the status of your insurance at all, ie the matter of the disc is only of interest to the guards.

I didn't explain that very well!

coylemj

R.O.R wrote: »

I read through my RSA policy document when 123 changed me from Travellers, and I'm pretty sure it states in there that the "other" car needs to be insured.

They have more or less the same Ts & Cs as the other companies....

In Section 1 of the RSA Motor Policy document.....

Driving other cars

If item 5(B) of the Certificate of Insurance is operative the Insurer will in the terms of this Section indemnify the Policyholder in respect of any occurrence while personally driving a motor vehicle described in the said item 5(B)

You can check your cert. but I'd equally bet the mortgage that there is no condition stating that the other car must be insured.

And here's the condition that I mentioned where if there is another policy you must claim under it, except that they mention 'rateable proportion', whatever that is. I have emboldened the word 'If' to highlight the fact that they are entertaining the situation where the policyholder is driving a car which has no insurance of it's own.

Other Insurance

If any other existing insurance covers the same loss damage or liability the Insurer shall not be liable except under Sub - Section 1 of Section 5 to pay more than its rateable proportion of any claim.

http://www.rsagroup.ie/ProductServices/Motor/pdf/Car%20Insurance%20Policy_MOT1001.01.09.pdf

Driving 'other cars' as an element of a motor policy is meaningless if the other car needs it's own insurance, isn't this obvious?

wonski

I can only tell what Tesco Insurance(underwritten by RSA) says:
The car
-under 2.5 liter engine
-does not belong to me or any other person living with me
-is not hired
-has no other insurance covering my driving
-is under my control for less than 30 days
Owner's permission is required of course.
Also, if I let somone drive my car under his third-party extension, my comprehensive cover won't cover my car while under his control.
No mention that car needs to be insured elsewhere.

As for insurance disc, You may get a fine for not displaying it, which is unfortunate, but true.

coylemj

wonski wrote: »

I can only tell what Tesco Insurance(underwritten by RSA) says:
The car
-under 2.5 liter engine
-does not belong to me or any other person living with me
-is not hired
-has no other insurance covering my driving
-is under my control for less than 30 days
Owner's permission is required of course.
Also, if I let somone drive my car under his third-party extension, my comprehensive cover won't cover my car while under his control.
No mention that car needs to be insured elsewhere.

As for insurance disc, You may get a fine for not displaying it, which is unfortunate, but true.

That clause (in bold above) is typical of the standard policy for driving 'other cars' i.e. we will cover you only if you are not covered by the other guy's insurance or put another way, if you can claim from the other guy's insurance, you must do so.

It is not the same as saying that the other guy has to have insurance, it's actually saying the direct opposite viz. we will only cover you if the other guy has no insurance.

Owryan

Im on a learner permit and have recently renewed my insurance. I am covered to drive any other vehicle tpft only and my insurance will cover that vehicle only if it has a valid tax n nct.

Nowhere does it say that I cannot drive a vehicle belonging to anyone on my policy. My ex is actually a named driver on my policy (adding her took my premium down by €140) .

The only vehicles I am not covered to drive under my policy are hire cars,psvs or commercial vehicles.

coylemj

Owryan wrote: »

Im on a learner permit and have recently renewed my insurance. I am covered to drive any other vehicle tpft only and my insurance will cover that vehicle only if it has a valid tax n nct.

Nowhere does it say that I cannot drive a vehicle belonging to anyone on my policy. My ex is actually a named driver on my policy (adding her took my premium down by €140) .

The only vehicles I am not covered to drive under my policy are hire cars,psvs or commercial vehicles.

If you check your policy document and/or cert. you'll find that the coverage to drive 'other cars' does not include cars owned or hired by you and (in some cases) owned by members of your family.

Anan1

coylemj wrote: »

It doesn't 'vary' at all, no insurance company imposes that condition. We've been down this road umpteen times.

Misreading of various policies leads people to believe that the other car must be insured. What leads to the confusion is a condition which states that if they can claim under the other guy's insurance (if there is a policy) they must but ultimately if they have cover to drive 'other cars' and they fulfill the basic conditions (they don't own the car and have not hired it), their own insurance will cover them if the other guy's insurance doesn't or even if there no policy on the other car.

I've certainly never seen the condition in any policy i've ever held. Can anyone who feels that their ins co imposes this condition actually quote the relevant section from their policy?

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

If you check your policy document and/or cert. you'll find that the coverage to drive 'other cars' does not include cars owned or hired by you and (in some cases) owned by members of your family.

As far as I know your "spouse" is the only family member excluded. The driving other cars extension would be pointless if you couldn't say drive a parents car etc.

My car has been off the road for a few months now and I have been getting by using a selection of my mothers, fathers and sisters cars all driven using the other cars extension on my own policy.

wonski

Alana Scary Typhoon wrote: »

As far as I know your "spouse" is the only family member excluded. The driving other cars extension would be pointless if you couldn't say drive a parents car etc.

My car has been off the road for a few months now and I have been getting by using a selection of my mothers, fathers and sisters cars all driven using the other cars extension on my own policy.

Well, you are wrong because my policy does not allow for this. It is to prevent young, unexperienced owners of 1.0 micras to jump into their parents BMW's. Basically RSA says that if the car is registered to anyone living with me, I cant drive it. As for parents and family members they can just add you to their policy as named driver, and pay the premium.

http://www.easyquote.ie/blog/index.php/car-insurance-ireland-what-is-driving-other-cars-extension/
Some condition for few insurers in link above

mathepac

Alana Scary Typhoon wrote: »

...
My car has been off the road for a few months now and I have been getting by using a selection of my mothers, fathers and sisters cars all driven using the other cars extension on my own policy.

Just as a matter of interest, have you told your insurers or are you just assuming you are automatically covered?

wonski

wonski wrote: »

http://www.easyquote.ie/blog/index.php/car-insurance-ireland-what-is-driving-other-cars-extension/
Some condition for few insurers in link above

None of the insurers in that link have any restriction on family members other than spouse.

mathepac wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, have you told your insurers or are you just assuming you are automatically covered?

My insurance cert states that I can drive any car once its not owned by me or my spouse or hired to me and I have the owners permission. Its whats on the cert that matters, not what they tell you over the phone in anycase there has been plenty of cases here where people have been told different things by the same insurer. I have been driving "other" cars on my policy since I have had a full license about 8 years ago. I don't think I know a person who drives that doesn't drive a parents or siblings car using the extension at some point and have never heard of a stipulation in relation to cars in your household or owned by family members.

As I said I would say the vast majority of people who avail of the extension are driving the car of a close family member.

wonski

There are certain terms and conditions, that are not printed on Certificate.
As for the link you mentioned, there are only some of them, the rest is in policy booklets and small print. They vary from company to company, so I am not saying that you were not covered, but some policies won't allow for this.
Also using this extension for months when your car is broken, is not what these policies are designed for. It all comes out when claim is made to insurer.

mathepac

Alana Scary Typhoon wrote: »

... My insurance cert states that I can drive any car once its not owned by me or my spouse or hired to me ...

Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada. yada, don't answer the question whatever you do.

The short answer is you have not informed your insurers, you have not declared your car off the road for a protracted period (which it is) and the bad news is your own policy does not cover you to drive other cars for extended periods (i.e. beyond a few days) in the circumstances you describe.

As you don't trust information supplied over the telephone by your insurers, write to the underwriting manager and seek his/her written reply on your position.

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada. yada, don't answer the question whatever you do.

The short answer is you have not informed your insurers, you have not declared your car off the road for a protracted period (which it is) and the bad news is your own policy does not cover you to drive other cars for extended periods (i.e. beyond a few days) in the circumstances you describe.

As you don't trust information supplied over the telephone by your insurers, write to the underwriting manager and seek his/her written reply on your position.

For a start I have no obligation whatsoever to declare my car of the road to anybody and even if I was I have in fact driven it a small number of times on short trips so if it came to it it could be argued that its not off the road I'm just not using it very often. Also I didnt say I was using the cars for more than a few days at a time. I might use one over the weekend or use 3 different cars over the course of the weekend. I might bring one with me when I head away for the week to work or I might get the bus.

In any case I'm not using any car over an extended period, the absolute most was two weeks and in fact I only drove to where I was going, parked up for the week and drove back home and repeated the following week. Thats about 3 hours of driving for 4 days in two weeks, hardly excessive use also nowhere is it stated that there is a time limit on how long I can drive other cars for.

Do you seriously think I have any obligation or could be bothered ringing up the insurance company to tell them I am going to drive another car which I am covered to do under the terms and conditions of my insurance policy?

What exactly would you have me get in writing from the underwriting manager? I drive other cars for a day here and there which I am covered to do under my insurance policy, am I allowed to continue to do this and he will say yes.

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

The short answer is you have not informed your insurers, you have not declared your car off the road for a protracted period (which it is) and the bad news is your own policy does not cover you to drive other cars for extended periods (i.e. beyond a few days) in the circumstances you describe.

I don't know about Allie Easy Mandolin, but my policy does not require me to tell my insurance company when my car is off the road, and there is no time restriction on my driving other cars extension. I don't need to call my insurers to verify this, it's there in black & white on my policy.

Fishtits

If I can drift a little here, I was dissapointed that the Troika didn't include Insurance in the list to be sorted along with the medics & the legal guys.

Basically they write their own rules, based on laws that go back to the Spanish Galleons, they are judge & jury on their own cases, implemented by intimidation. So the lesson is read the fine print before you sign.

PS if anyone of substance in the said industry would like to argue this case they are more than welcome... my response will be from Bermuda...

mathepac

Alana Scary Typhoon wrote: »

... I have in fact driven it a small number of times on short trips so if it came to it it could be argued that its not off the road I'm just not using it very often. ...

Any argument you have is with yourself as your original statement was ...

Alana Scary Typhoon wrote: »

... My car has been off the road for a few months now ...

Make your mind up.

Alana Scary Typhoon wrote: »

... Also I didnt say I was using the cars for more than a few days at a time. I might use one over the weekend or use 3 different cars over the course of the weekend. I might bring one with me when I head away for the week to work or I might get the bus.

In any case I'm not using any car over an extended period, the absolute most was two weeks and in fact I only drove to where I was going, parked up for the week and drove back home and repeated the following week. Thats about 3 hours of driving for 4 days in two weeks, hardly excessive use also nowhere is it stated that there is a time limit on how long I can drive other cars for ...

Given your ability to change stories, avoid answering simple straightforward questions and suggestions and your willingness to argue over semantics, it is pretty clear to me there is something amiss.

As you maintain you're not "not using any car over an extended period", and you seem to think that cars only need insurance when driven, you seem to harbour a belief that using a variety of substitute cars over a an extended period is different to using a single substitute car over the same period.

Strange evolving story. I wonder what the actuality is.

Anan1

@mathepac - what makes you think that Allie Easy Mandolin's policy doesn't cover driving other cars for 'extended periods'?

Fey!

A couple of things to note for insurance.

Commercial insurance doesn't have driving of other cars

Private insurance wiull not allow you to drive a commercial vehicle

With AXA private policies, after 3/4 years with them your driving of other cars becomes fully comp

AFAIK driving of other cars only covers you while you're driving. If the car is set on fire while parked, for example, it's covered by the owners policy. If the owner has no policy, then it's a tough luck situation.

Some driving of other cars sections are only available if the policyholder is over 25/30, as are the open drive sections.

Not all insurance policies have the same T&Cs, so check your policy beforehand instead of relying on information from potentially uninformed people on a message board; if you're found driving with no insurance the "I read it on the internet" line is not a defence.

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

Any argument you have is with yourself as your original statement was ...
Make your mind up.

When I said off the road it was a general term referrring to the fact that it has a problem. Not that it is totally unusable and as I have said there is no obligation to declare the car off the road anyway. If there was no problem with it but I chose not to drive it, that would be no different. If I go on holidays for a month do you really think that an insurance company expect you to inform them.

mathepac wrote: »

Given your ability to change stories, avoid answering simple straightforward questions and suggestions and your willingness to argue over semantics, it is pretty clear to me there is something amiss.

As you maintain you're not "not using any car over an extended period", and you seem to think that cars only need insurance when driven, you seem to harbour a belief that using a variety of substitute cars over a an extended period is different to using a single substitute car over the same period.

Strange evolving story. I wonder what the actuality is.

My insurance is only active on the other car when I'm driving it, when its parked up the car owners insurance is covering it same as if they drove it to my house and parked it there for a week.

As has been pointed out by Anan1 in his policy, my policy makes no reference to how often I can use driving other cars extension or for how long at a time. It would of course be impossible for the insurance company to police any such stipulation anyway. The only reason I pointed out that I was using a number of different cars was to show that the owners of each car were still using there own car the majority of the time so you cannot accuse me of being the main driver on any of them.

Its not a strange story at all. Its quite simple, a problem with my car has forced me to use it only in emergencies, I plan on selling said car rather than fixing it and buying a different car when I have time. In the mean time, when I am home for weekends I use family members cars to get around over the weekend and on a few occasions have borrowed one of these cars for a week.

This is all perfectly legal and within the terms and conditions of my policy. Also as of my next renewal my driving other cars extension will cover me fully comp on other cars.

oldyouth

Fey! wrote: »

A couple of things to note for insurance.

Commercial insurance doesn't have driving of other cars

Private insurance wiull not allow you to drive a commercial vehicle

With AXA private policies, after 3/4 years with them your driving of other cars becomes fully comp

AFAIK driving of other cars only covers you while you're driving. If the car is set on fire while parked, for example, it's covered by the owners policy. If the owner has no policy, then it's a tough luck situation.

Some driving of other cars sections are only available if the policyholder is over 25/30, as are the open drive sections.

Not all insurance policies have the same T&Cs, so check your policy beforehand instead of relying on information from potentially uninformed people on a message board; if you're found driving with no insurance the "I read it on the internet" line is not a defence.

Excellent post and as for Fishtits comment

Basically they write their own rules, based on laws that go back to the Spanish Galleons, they are judge & jury on their own cases, implemented by intimidation. So the lesson is read the fine print before you sign.

I'd have to agree with the sentiment that there are hundreds of T&Cs. However, these have been included in the policy over time to prevent all the smart alec attempts to abuse the cover under motor policies, as are often discussed here.