Insurance question - driving other cars

oknepop

My fully comp policy lets me drive other cars third party as long as:

- The car isn't registered in my name
- I have the owner's permission to drive it
- Car is taxed and has an NCT

My question is - does that car need a policy associated with it? - i.e. the owner being insured on it. Or can I drive a car that doesn't have insurance, provided the criteria above are met, seeing as I will be insured while driving it.

coylemj

oknepop wrote: »

My fully comp policy lets me drive other cars third party as long as:

- The car isn't registered in my name
- I have the owner's permission to drive it
- Car is taxed and has an NCT

My question is - does that car need a policy associated with it? - i.e. the owner being insured on it. Or can I drive a car that doesn't have insurance, provided the criteria above are met, seeing as I will be insured while driving it.

No it does not, no Irish insurance policy contains that requirement though it's a oft-repeated urban myth.

However, and here is where the myth probably originates..... IF the other car does have it's own policy and it covers you to drive it, your policy will tell you that you must first attempt to claim under the owner's policy. So the situation effectively is that your own policy will only cover you if there is no cover on the car's own policy, if there is one.

mgbgt1978

The only caveat is that you may (highly unlikely in fairness) get done for driving without a Valid Insurance Disc....even though you are insured.

minibear

I was getting quotes last week and asked this very question. The answer was No, the car does not need to be insured separately.

coylemj

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

The only caveat is that you may (highly unlikely in fairness) get done for driving without a Valid Insurance Disc....even though you are insured.

Yes, this is a risk, especially with the ANPR system which will tell the folks in the patrol car behind you that the car you're driving has no policy so you should bring your own insurance cert. with you in case you're pulled over.

savagethegoat

I believe you have ten days to display a disc.

The one point not often stressed, it is in most cases only third party cover. I would be very wary of lending my car out on that basis,for obvious reasons.

Del2005

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, this is a risk, especially with the ANPR system which will tell the folks in the patrol car behind you that the car you're driving has no policy so you should bring your own insurance cert. with you in case you're pulled over.

Insurance isn't checked by ANPR. The lack of a central database made ANPR useless

Fiesta

coylemj wrote: »

No it does not, no Irish insurance policy contains that requirement though it's a oft-repeated urban myth.

I have just received my renewal quote with Aviva. From renewal date, there are some policy changes. Amongst others is this:

Driving other cars:

This cover will only apply if...

"A current certificate of insurance has been issued and remains in force on the Private car being driven under the driving other cars cover provided"

My reading of that is that from renewal, I can no longer drive other cars that are not otherwise insured. Never had that clause before now.

To Elland Back

My insurance does not require the other car to be insured, but I would never drive one that isn't. Your driving of other cars extension covers YOUR liability for an accident. In other words, if you cause the accident by your driving. However, if the CAR causes the accident via a defect that you were not aware of, your insurer will not provide indemnity and why should they, it is the owner's responsibility?

Your own policy provides cover for both aspects on your insured vehicle

savagethegoat

it's very minimal cover. Legal right to be on the road really.

chocksaway

Im also with aviva and they state the car must have valid tax, nct and insurance, must not have my name on log book and cannot be a commercial vehicle

visual

To Elland Back wrote: »

My insurance does not require the other car to be insured, but I would never drive one that isn't. Your driving of other cars extension covers YOUR liability for an accident. In other words, if you cause the accident by your driving. However, if the CAR causes the accident via a defect that you were not aware of, your insurer will not provide indemnity and why should they, it is the owner's responsibility?

Your own policy provides cover for both aspects on your insured vehicle

That's sounds more like conjecture than based on your insurance policy

As driver it's your responsibility to ensure car is road worthy and that applies to borrowed or your own.

If your driving someone else car and the wheel flies off causing yoy to crash then its the same as if you where driving your own car with 3rd party cover only.

To Elland Back

chocksaway wrote: »

Im also with aviva and they state the car must have valid tax, nct and insurance, must not have my name on log book and cannot be a commercial vehicle

Yep, it is in the policy book (page 17)
http://www.aviva.ie/online/media-library/motor-policy-booklet-03-2016.pdf

However, although the policy book is king, they don't mention it in their blurb about Benefits, which is a bit naughty
http://www.aviva.ie/online/driving/car-insurance/benefits/

To Elland Back

visual wrote: »

That's sounds more like conjecture than based on your insurance policy

As driver it's your responsibility to ensure car is road worthy and that applies to borrowed or your own.

If your driving someone else car and the wheel flies off causing yoy to crash then its the same as if you where driving your own car with 3rd party cover only.

It's not conjecture and it has everything to do with liability. Your own policy covers your negligent driving and your liability for the condition of your car (your property and something you have control of with regard to maintenance)

By definition, the car you drive by way of your DOC extension is unknown to you. The 'ordinary man' is not expected to reasonably be aware (or inspect) defects which may not be obvious.

coylemj

Fiesta wrote: »

I have just received my renewal quote with Aviva. From renewal date, there are some policy changes. Amongst others is this:

Driving other cars:

This cover will only apply if...

"A current certificate of insurance has been issued and remains in force on the Private car being driven under the driving other cars cover provided"

My reading of that is that from renewal, I can no longer drive other cars that are not otherwise insured. Never had that clause before now.

That's interesting and definitely a new condition that I have never come across before and I've read pretty much every Irish motor policy document as part of the debate about this very issue on other threads.

It does beg the question that I have raised on other threads - if the other car must have it's own insurance, what is the value or meaning of a 'driving other cars' clause in your own policy?

If I want to drive my neighbour's car and my own policy says that his car has to be insured, it means that the 'driving other cars' clause in my policy is meaningless because it's something I can never invoke given that I will always have to claim under his policy and if he has no insurance, my own cover (to drive his car) is void so how or when can the 'driving other cars' cover in my policy cut in?.

visual

To Elland Back wrote: »

It's not conjecture and it has everything to do with liability. Your own policy covers your negligent driving and your liability for the condition of your car (your property and something you have control of with regard to maintenance)

By definition, the car you drive by way of your DOC extension is unknown to you. The 'ordinary man' is not expected to reasonably be aware (or inspect) defects which may not be obvious.

3rd party liability on own car or one you borrow is the same, it clearly states that in your policy.

Your insurance may add conditions that are explicitly stated for car you borrow. Like it must not be registered in your name, used for hire or reward etc.. may even state it must be road worthy. All these are stated in policy.

But you extrapolating these conditions to fit with your own logic and over looking 3rd party in 3rd party liability.

Your other point is based on law
The legal responsibility of driving a car is with driver so if stopped and found to have defective tyres lights etc it falls on driver not owner. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse so ordinary man doesn't come into it.

Your own car or one you borrow may have unknown hidden defect but it's the driver who is responsible for using it in public place. If at later date it's discovered that it was manufactured or garage fault then a seperate legal case may be brought but that would apply if it was your own or borrowed car.

visual

coylemj wrote: »

That's interesting and definitely a new condition that I have never come across before and I've read pretty much every Irish motor policy document as part of the debate about this very issue on other threads.

It does beg the question that I have raised on other threads - if the other car must have it's own insurance, what is the value or meaning of a 'driving other cars' clause in your own policy?

If I want to drive my neighbour's car and my own policy says that his car has to be insured, it means that the 'driving other cars' clause in my policy is meaningless because it's something I can never invoke given that I will always have to claim under his policy and if he has no insurance, my own cover (to drive his car) is void so how or when can the 'driving other cars' cover in my policy cut in?.

Insurance companies here chance their arm all the time and wait until it's challenge in court. But the basics is they are private company and can impose whatever conditions they want in open market. Unfortunately it's a small cartell with a captive market legally obliged to insure their car.

However this would how I seeing it playing out.

If you borrow an uninsured car and crashed then insurance company would be compelled to pay 3rd party but garda prosecution for driving uninsured would follow.

mickdw

coylemj wrote: »

That's interesting and definitely a new condition that I have never come across before and I've read pretty much every Irish motor policy document as part of the debate about this very issue on other threads.

It does beg the question that I have raised on other threads - if the other car must have it's own insurance, what is the value or meaning of a 'driving other cars' clause in your own policy?

If I want to drive my neighbour's car and my own policy says that his car has to be insured, it means that the 'driving other cars' clause in my policy is meaningless because it's something I can never invoke given that I will always have to claim under his policy and if he has no insurance, my own cover (to drive his car) is void so how or when can the 'driving other cars' cover in my policy cut in?.

My reading of it is that you can only claim on insurance of other car if actually named on that policy. For all other instances of driving other cars, the extension cover would be the one paying out.

oknepop

Some great responses here. By the sound of it, it's unclear whether this provision should be relied on to driving someones car - seems to be open to interpretation, depending on what's set out in your policy.

coylemj

mickdw wrote: »

My reading of it is that you can only claim on insurance of other car if actually named on that policy. For all other instances of driving other cars, the extension cover would be the one paying out.

If the other guy's car has the clause covering other drivers with the usual conditions (between 25 and 70 and with a full licence) then you don't need to be named on his policy to be covered as long as you satisfy those conditions and are driving the car with his consent. In that case you would not need a policy of your own but even if you had one, your own insurance company would insist that you claim under his policy.

Typically the only people who need to be named on a policy are people with a learner permit or people who are under 25 - usually the children of the policyholder.

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

If the other guy's car has the clause covering other drivers with the usual conditions (between 25 and 70 and with a full licence) then you don't need to be named on his policy to be covered as long as you satisfy those conditions and are driving the car with his consent. In that case you would not need a policy of your own but even if you had one, your own insurance company would insist that you claim under his policy.

Typically the only people who need to be named on a policy are people with a learner permit or people who are under 25 - usually the children of the policyholder.

Yes, but what your are describing is open driving policy.

From my experience, that kind of policies cost at least 50% extra, so how many people have them. I'd say it's very very few.

Charles Babbage

coylemj wrote: »

That's interesting and definitely a new condition that I have never come across before and I've read pretty much every Irish motor policy document as part of the debate about this very issue on other threads.

It does beg the question that I have raised on other threads - if the other car must have it's own insurance, what is the value or meaning of a 'driving other cars' clause in your own policy?

If I want to drive my neighbour's car and my own policy says that his car has to be insured, it means that the 'driving other cars' clause in my policy is meaningless because it's something I can never invoke given that I will always have to claim under his policy and if he has no insurance, my own cover (to drive his car) is void so how or when can the 'driving other cars' cover in my policy cut in?.

The other policy does not have to include you.

What insurance companies wish to avoid is two cars on the road with one policy, e.g. you insure your car open driving and give it to your neighbour, while he gives his car (without any policy) to you. Voila, two cars one policy.

coylemj

Looking at the current (March 2016) Aviva policy document as a result of Fiesta's post (#8) above, there are some interesting conditions under the 'driving other cars' section. The purpose seems to be to stop someone borrowing a laid up car (with no insurance of it's own) if their own car has been written off. Essentially the car you borrow has to have some class of a current insurance policy - not necessarily covering you but it must have an active policy and you must still own your car (the one on your own policy) and it must not have been written off.....

This (driving other cars) cover will only apply if -

4 a current certificate of insurance has been issued and remains in force on the Private car being driven under the Driving other cars cover provided;

5 you have the consent of the owner to drive the Private car;

6 the Private car is being used within the limits of use shown in the current certificate of insurance;

7 you still own and insure your car under this policy and your car has not been damaged beyond economic repair;

shedweller

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The other policy does not have to include you.

What insurance companies wish to avoid is two cars on the road with one policy, e.g. you insure your car open driving and give it to your neighbour, while he gives his car (without any policy) to you. Voila, two cars one policy.

How does this work in other countries? Or is Ireland unique in its ability to take the unholy p1ss out of any financial system?

CiniO

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The other policy does not have to include you.

What insurance companies wish to avoid is two cars on the road with one policy, e.g. you insure your car open driving and give it to your neighbour, while he gives his car (without any policy) to you. Voila, two cars one policy.

I used to do it for a while with my wife's car.
We had 2 cars, and only one policy. Worked well.

CiniO

shedweller wrote: »

How does this work in other countries? Or is Ireland unique in its ability to take the unholy p1ss out of any financial system?

I don't think there is such thing as "driving other car" in many other countries than Ireland and UK.
Most countries work on a system where insurance cover is attached to a car, and everyone who drives it is insured.

visual

CiniO wrote: »

I don't think there is such thing as "driving other car" in many other countries than Ireland and UK.
Most countries work on a system where insurance cover is attached to a car, and everyone who drives it is insured.

It makes the most sence and easy to do price comparison

To Elland Back

mickdw wrote: »

My reading of it is that you can only claim on insurance of other car if actually named on that policy. For all other instances of driving other cars, the extension cover would be the one paying out.

If you are driving someone else's car and even if you are named on their policy, your own driving of other cars extension will always take precedence in paying 3rd party claim. The 3rd party claim will go through your policy.

If the borrowed car is comprehensively insured, any own damage will be paid under that policy. That's the way it is, you don't get to choose

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

If you are driving someone else's car and even if you are named on their policy, your own driving of other cars extension will always take precedence in paying 3rd party claim. The 3rd party claim will go through your policy.

If the borrowed car is comprehensively insured, any own damage will be paid under that policy. That's the way it is, you don't get to choose

So it's purely a "you're covered, but only if you fulfill arbitrary makey-uppy conditions that do not affect your third party cover"

"you are covered to drive all other roadworthy, taxed cars.... if you carry a duck in the back seat" would be just as valid a condition when it comes to the legal minimum you require to be on the road.

Waits for standard catch-all "you don't understand insurance" answer instead of a valid explanation of this being anything but insurers making things up because they can, and who'll stop them ha?

To Elland Back

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So it's purely a "you're covered, but only if you fulfill arbitrary makey-uppy conditions that do not affect your third party cover"

"you are covered to drive all other roadworthy, taxed cars.... if you carry a duck in the back seat" would be just as valid a condition when it comes to the legal minimum you require to be on the road.

Waits for standard catch-all "you don't understand insurance" answer instead of a valid explanation of this being anything but insurers making things up because they can, and who'll stop them ha?

I thought every contract that ever existed had makey-uppy conditions???

Anyway, you don't underst............., shlt, I fell for evil trap again

coylemj

To Elland Back wrote: »

If you are driving someone else's car and even if you are named on their policy, your own driving of other cars extension will always take precedence in paying 3rd party claim. The 3rd party claim will go through your policy.

The complete opposite is the case. Virtually every motor policy (in the 'driving other cars' clause) will tell you that if you borrow a car and there's a claim, they will only pay out if your are not covered under the car's own policy. Which means that if there is reciprocal cover (i.e. you are nominally covered both ways), you have to claim using the owner's policy.

Special Circumstances

coylemj wrote: »

The complete opposite is the case. Virtually every motor policy (in the 'driving other cars' clause) will tell you that if you borrow a car and there's a claim, they will only pay out if your are not covered under the car's own policy. Which means that if there is reciprocal cover (i.e. you are nominally covered both ways), you have to claim using the owner's policy.

That's how anyone with an ounce of common sense reads the standard 3rd party extension clause.

Interesting how the "you don't understand insurance" folks have a different take on it.

To Elland Back

To Elland Back wrote: »

If you are driving someone else's car and even if you are named on their policy, your own driving of other cars extension will always take precedence in paying 3rd party claim. The 3rd party claim will go through your policy.

If the borrowed car is comprehensively insured, any own damage will be paid under that policy. That's the way it is, you don't get to choose

This is incorrect. All driving other cars extensions state that it doesn't apply if you are covered by any other insurance. Being a named driver means you are covered by another insurance and therefore your 3rd party extension doesn't apply and any claims will be dealt with by the insurance you are a named driver on.

To Elland Back

coylemj wrote: »

The complete opposite is the case. Virtually every motor policy (in the 'driving other cars' clause) will tell you that if you borrow a car and there's a claim, they will only pay out if your are not covered under the car's own policy. Which means that if there is reciprocal cover (i.e. you are nominally covered both ways), you have to claim using the owner's policy.

Virtually the same exclusion is under the Liability to 3rd parties section of the vehicle you will be named on, so they cancel eachother out. A 3rd party cannot be prejudiced by policy conditions, so it will fall on the policy which holds the primary reason for the accident i.e. the driver's own insurance. I'm having trouble linking at the minute but the following is a cut & paste from Zurich's policy



3. Exceptions to Section 1: Liability to Third Parties

The Insurer shall not be liable:

(a) Under No. 2 “Indemnity to other persons”....................................................



(iii) if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy.....................................

(

coylemj

To Elland Back wrote: »

Virtually the same exclusion is under the Liability to 3rd parties section of the vehicle you will be named on, so they cancel eachother out. A 3rd party cannot be prejudiced by policy conditions, so it will fall on the policy which holds the primary reason for the accident i.e. the driver's own insurance. I'm having trouble linking at the minute but the following is a cut & paste from Zurich's policy



3. Exceptions to Section 1: Liability to Third Parties

The Insurer shall not be liable:

(a) Under No. 2 “Indemnity to other persons”....................................................



(iii) if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy.....................................

(

You've just proved your earlier post wrong - what that Zurich exclusion is telling their policyholders is that their third party cover does not apply if they are covered by a different policy e.g. if they drive a borrowed car which has cover for 'other drivers'.

You talk about two conditions cancelling each other out, they do not for the simple reason that the 'other drivers' clause in the car owner's policy does not contain such an exclusion - it only applies in the case of the driver's policy. So if you have a car with cover for other drivers, you lend it to someone with 'driving other cars' cover and there is a claim, it means that if his policy has this exclusion, the claim has to be handled by your insurance. The driver's policy is able to have that exclusion because in law the car owner is ultimately liable for third party claims.

Special Circumstances

coylemj wrote: »

You've just proved your earlier post wrong - .

Apparently they're running the electricity off the gas and the gas off the electricity and we are all unbearable cretins for "not understanding"/"daring to question" this.

millington

coylemj wrote: »

No it does not, no Irish insurance policy contains that requirement though it's a oft-repeated urban myth.

However, and here is where the myth probably originates..... IF the other car does have it's own policy and it covers you to drive it, your policy will tell you that you must first attempt to claim under the owner's policy. So the situation effectively is that your own policy will only cover you if there is no cover on the car's own policy, if there is one.

Avivas third party extension required the other car to be insured. Some of it's broker policies don't but it's own Motorcare one definitely does.

Most of them don't require it but as your own policy then covers it.

To Elland Back

coylemj wrote: »

You've just proved your earlier post wrong - what that Zurich exclusion is telling their policyholders is that their third party cover does not apply if they are covered by a different policy e.g. if they drive a borrowed car which has cover for 'other drivers'.

You talk about two conditions cancelling each other out, they do not for the simple reason that the 'other drivers' clause in the car owner's policy does not contain such an exclusion - it only applies in the case of the driver's policy. So if you have a car with cover for other drivers, you lend it to someone with 'driving other cars' cover and there is a claim, it means that if his policy has this exclusion, the claim has to be handled by your insurance. The driver's policy is able to have that exclusion because in law the car owner is ultimately liable for third party claims.

Let's try and simplify.

I am insured with Zurich and my policy contains the above clause. That wording has 2 effects.
1) If I am driving another car on which I am named (providing indemnity)MY policy will not cover me for liability to a 3rd party while availing of the driving of other cars extension because I am entitled to indemnity under any other policy.
2) If I have a named driver on my policy, who has driving of other cars with their insurer, MY policy will not provide cover as it excludes if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy. (their own)

Assuming the same wording is on every policy, that means no 3rd party is getting paid and that cannot happen. When exclusions cancel eachother out, liability rests with the more specific policy, i.e. the one that primarily covers his driving activities (his own policy)

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

Let's try and simplify.

...

When exclusions cancel eachother out, liability rests with the more specific policy, i.e. the one that primarily covers his driving activities (his own policy)[/SIZE]

What is the SI unit for specificness?

RustyNut

To Elland Back wrote: »

My insurance does not require the other car to be insured, but I would never drive one that isn't. Your driving of other cars extension covers YOUR liability for an accident. In other words, if you cause the accident by your driving. However, if the CAR causes the accident via a defect that you were not aware of, your insurer will not provide indemnity and why should they, it is the owner's responsibility?

Your own policy provides cover for both aspects on your insured vehicle

AA motor insurance cover you fully comp for driving other cars.

To Elland Back

RustyNut wrote: »

AA motor insurance cover you fully comp for driving other cars.

Yes they do

Barr

To Elland Back wrote: »

Yep, it is in the policy book (page 17)
http://www.aviva.ie/online/media-library/motor-policy-booklet-03-2016.pdf

However, although the policy book is king, they don't mention it in their blurb about Benefits, which is a bit naughty
http://www.aviva.ie/online/driving/car-insurance/benefits/

I don't see anything that says the car needs to be NCT'd or taxed.

Highly unlikely an Insurance Comapny can refuse Driving Other Cars extension given that it is a EU directive.

To Elland Back

Barr wrote: »

I don't see anything that says the car needs to be NCT'd or taxed.

Highly unlikely an Insurance Comapny can refuse Driving Other Cars extension given that it is a EU directive.

I as just referring to the insurance aspect, not the NCT or tax part

coylemj

To Elland Back wrote: »

Let's try and simplify.

I am insured with Zurich and my policy contains the above clause. That wording has 2 effects.
1) If I am driving another car on which I am named (providing indemnity)MY policy will not cover me for liability to a 3rd party while availing of the driving of other cars extension because I am entitled to indemnity under any other policy.
2) If I have a named driver on my policy, who has driving of other cars with their insurer, MY policy will not provide cover as it excludes if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy. (their own)

Assuming the same wording is on every policy, that means no 3rd party is getting paid and that cannot happen. When exclusions cancel eachother out, liability rests with the more specific policy, i.e. the one that primarily covers his driving activities (his own policy)

You're not simplifying it, you're throwing named drivers into the pot because you don't otherwise have a case. We're talking about a situation where someone casually borrows a car from the likes of a neighbour so the issue of being named on a policy doesn't arise.

grogi

Barr wrote: »

I don't see anything that says the car needs to be NCT'd or taxed.

Highly unlikely an Insurance Comapny can refuse Driving Other Cars extension given that it is a EU directive.

It is Irish law that is in force in Ireland. EU directive is only a suggestion for local governments to align the local law with the EU vision.

savagethegoat

I can't believe people still don't get this, you can drive someone else's car as an extension of your policy provided that the policy the owner of that car holds (if he does) does not allow you to drive it. If their policy does allow you to drive it, you are not driving covered by your own policy. It's quite clear to me.

Special Circumstances

savagethegoat wrote: »

I can't believe people still don't get this, you can drive someone else's car as an extension of your policy provided that the policy the owner of that car holds (if he does) does not allow you to drive it. If their policy does allow you to drive it, you are not driving covered by your own policy. It's quite clear to me.

To Elland Back wrote: »

Let's try and simplify.

....
2) If I have a named driver on my policy, who has driving of other cars with their insurer, MY policy will not provide cover as it excludes if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy. (their own)

Assuming the same wording is on every policy, that means no 3rd party is getting paid and that cannot happen. When exclusions cancel eachother out, liability rests with the more specific policy, i.e. the one that primarily covers his driving activities (his own policy)

Are you saying To Elland Back doesn't understand insurance?

shietpilot

To Elland Back wrote: »

Let's try and simplify.

I am insured with Zurich and my policy contains the above clause. That wording has 2 effects.
1) If I am driving another car on which I am named (providing indemnity)MY policy will not cover me for liability to a 3rd party while availing of the driving of other cars extension because I am entitled to indemnity under any other policy.
2) If I have a named driver on my policy, who has driving of other cars with their insurer, MY policy will not provide cover as it excludes if such person is entitled to indemnity under any other policy. (their own)

Assuming the same wording is on every policy, that means no 3rd party is getting paid and that cannot happen. When exclusions cancel eachother out, liability rests with the more specific policy, i.e. the one that primarily covers his driving activities (his own policy)

Would the contribution principle not come into play here and both insurance policies would cover 50% of the costs?

To Elland Back

I have always tried to be informative rather than argumentative on this forum with regard to Insurance and I fully accept different opinion and debate. I have quoted policy wordings and tried to interpret them for everybody as best I can. If people want to take or ignore my explanation, again, I have no problem with that. If you review my posts you will see that I don't condone our dysfunctional insurance market, but merely try to explain why it is as it is.

However, I am fed up with a couple of trolls who constantly derail EVERY discussion where people are genuinely looking for assistance. There are forums elsewhere on Boards where people will relish your efforts

All the best and I hope the protest against insurance premiums gets real debate going with those that can effect change

shietpilot

To Elland Back wrote: »

I have always tried to be informative rather than argumentative on this forum with regard to Insurance and I fully accept different opinion and debate. I have quoted policy wordings and tried to interpret them for everybody as best I can. If people want to take or ignore my explanation, again, I have no problem with that. If you review my posts you will see that I don't condone our dysfunctional insurance market, but merely try to explain why it is as it is.

However, I am fed up with a couple of trolls who constantly derail EVERY discussion where people are genuinely looking for assistance. There are forums elsewhere on Boards where people will relish your efforts

All the best and I hope the protest against insurance premiums gets real debate going with those that can effect change

Hmm, it was a serious question but OK

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

I have always tried to be informative rather than argumentative on this forum with regard to Insurance and I fully accept different opinion and debate. I have quoted policy wordings and tried to interpret them for everybody as best I can.

You're facing an uphill battle.
a) people resent the "ye don't understand ye thicks, just pay up" attitude from a couple of self appointed industry reps here. Usually deployed when there is some contradiction or illogical sh1t being queried.
b) this idea that a car must have another, completely separate, and having no bearing on your own cover, policy on it for your third party insurance to apply is complete @ssholing by Aviva.
c)it seems that if your interpretation of which policy pays out in the named driver / third party extensions scenario is correct... then people working for the industry have been doing such a terrible job of "plain englishing" T&Cs that they have been effectively lying to us.

All of these things just add up to complete contempt for the industry and its apologists.

You're suffering more for the sins of others than for your own.... but hey... that's insurance innit? ;-)