Insurance question - driving other cars

Barr

Special Circumstances wrote: »

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? ;-)

I agree totally with point B , it seems fundamentally wrong insisting a car needs to be already insured for the DOC extension to be usable on your own policy.

Someone could easily be caught out and find themselves driving uninsured totally unintentionally.

coylemj

Barr wrote: »

I agree totally with point B , it seems fundamentally wrong insisting a car needs to be already insured for the DOC extension to be usable on your own policy.

Someone could easily be caught out and find themselves driving uninsured totally unintentionally.

It doesn't make sense at first sight and AFAIK Aviva is the first company to insert that condition - despite the urban myth that claims it was always there.

My view is that they want to prevent their policyholders from borrowing 'laid up' cars with expired insurance for fear that they won't be 100% roadworthy, even if the car has a current NCT. So they will only cover their policyholders to drive cars that have a current policy in place, regardless of whether the car's own policy has 'other drivers' cover or not.

Allinall

More fed up dealing with idiots and trolls, I would have thought.

Special Circumstances

coylemj wrote: »

It doesn't make sense at first sight and AFAIK Aviva is the first company to insert that condition - despite the urban myth that claims it was always there.

My view is that they want to prevent their policyholders from borrowing 'laid up' cars with expired insurance for fear that they won't be 100% roadworthy, even if the car has a current NCT. So they will only cover their policyholders to drive cars that have a current policy in place, regardless of whether the car's own policy has 'other drivers' cover or not.

You can kinda see the logic in it if you accept that banning 15 year old cars is the "best" (laziest imo) way of dealing with that problem.

Except they are creeping all the time toward fighting over one ideal customer with the ideal car, smart enough never to crash but dumb enough to pay bajillions in a premium. That customer just doesn't exist.

If they don't want to insure people with perfect NCB on 15year old cars, or roadworthy cars not currently insured, or driving without ducks on a Tuesday, or people driving with "non factory audio", or the wrong kind of Magic Tree.... maybe they should just give the business up altogether rather than making up random clauses hidden in the depths of the documentation to catch people out. Or just give up offering third party extension.



Personally, I think it's more likely another sledgehammer attempt to crack a nut - the nut here being people purchasing a policy with third party extension on some just about legal cheapo 1L, then driving "their friends";);) substantially more difficult to insure car habitually under third party extension.

sunnysoutheast

Barr wrote: »

I agree totally with point B , it seems fundamentally wrong insisting a car needs to be already insured for the DOC extension to be usable on your own policy.

Someone could easily be caught out and find themselves driving uninsured totally unintentionally.

Is the restriction not to address the "insured on a 1l Micra, drive around in an otherwise-uninsurable Altezza registered in the mammy's name" market?

Judging by many of the lads I see in the industrial estate where I work this isn't a trivial number, unless they're all paying thousands for insurance.

I am fairly certain that my Quinn (remember them:rolleyes:) policy had the restriction that the other car had to be insured for DOC cover to be valid.

Jesus.

coylemj wrote: »

My view is that they want to prevent their policyholders from borrowing 'laid up' cars with expired insurance for fear that they won't be 100% roadworthy, even if the car has a current NCT.

Along with refusing to insure older cars, that's another undermining of the mandatory NCT.

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

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;

That's a deal breaker for me.

I'm soon renewing my policy, and Aviva offered me a premium €40 quid lower than my current insurer (Allianz).
However now looking at this requirement in their policy, I'm definitely going to fork out 40 quid and stay with Allianz.
Even more so, considering Aviva would charge me crazy money in case I got any penalty points.

Esel

Any company doing 'any other car or motorcycle' these days? Used to have that years ago, and it was very handy.

quadrifoglio verde

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Is the restriction not to address the "insured on a 1l Micra, drive around in an otherwise-uninsurable Altezza registered in the mammy's name" market?

Judging by many of the lads I see in the industrial estate where I work this isn't a trivial number, unless they're all paying thousands for insurance.

I am fairly certain that my Quinn (remember them:rolleyes:) policy had the restriction that the other car had to be insured for DOC cover to be valid.

This is why its been brought in. They've copped on to the abuse of buying a lower powered car, insuring it and driving a much more higher powered car thats registered in any name from the mother to the dog.
Technically, as the car was never registered in their name, they didn't own it and were entitled to drive around in that car, with minimum 3rd party cover but still 3rd party cover.
One of two things must have happened. Either there has been a rise in third party extension claims on cars that don't have any insurance disk.
Or they've realised they've left themselves wide open for third party extension claims on cars that don't have an insurance disk.
While third party extension claims will still happen, it will be more likely due to crashing mammys daily avensis instead of mammys weekly evo

Just like telling the guard that you hadn't been driving the car around for the last year to waive the back tax, it was great while it lasted but was clear as day that one day insurers would start clamping down on it.

Special Circumstances

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

This is why its been brought in. They've copped on to the abuse of buying a lower powered car, insuring it and driving a much more higher powered car thats registered in any name from the mother to the dog.
Technically, as the car was never registered in their name, they didn't own it and were entitled to drive around in that car, with minimum 3rd party cover but still 3rd party cover.
One of two things must have happened. Either there has been a rise in third party extension claims on cars that don't have any insurance disk.
Or they've realised they've left themselves wide open for third party extension claims on cars that don't have an insurance disk.
While third party extension claims will still happen, it will be more likely due to crashing mammys daily avensis instead of mammys weekly evo
.

Yeah that's my take too.
Except...
Now, as I've been told many times, I don't understand insurance, but if people driving unaccompanied on permits etc etc are still covered for third party.... won't the chancers still be covered here? But the company has a slightly better claim if the cost of chasing them through courts looks like it might just pay off?

Has anyone, ever, been prosecuted for "driving without insurance" due to breaking one of these technicalities? "Non standard audio" or what have you?

So, much like the 15 year car ban, a lot of genuine people are inconvenienced a lot more than a dedicated gang of chancers.

shietpilot

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Yeah that's my take too.
Except...
Now, as I've been told many times, I don't understand insurance, but if people driving unaccompanied on permits etc etc are still covered for third party.... won't the chancers still be covered here? But the company has a slightly better claim if the cost of chasing them through courts looks like it might just pay off?

Has anyone, ever, been prosecuted for "driving without insurance" due to breaking one of these technicalities? "Non standard audio" or what have you?

So, much like the 15 year car ban, a lot of genuine people are inconvenienced a lot more than a dedicated gang of chancers.

My parents claimed for their car using their own insurance when it was crashed and it had a double DIN touchscreen head unit. The insurance company (AIG) didn't mention a thing about it.

Special Circumstances

shietpilot wrote: »

My parents claimed for their car using their own insurance when it was crashed and it had a double DIN touchscreen head unit. The insurance company (AIG) didn't mention a thing about it.

Don't you know you're just supposed to suck it up, not cause a fuss like!
And with a non factory radio!

Shame!



Shame!




Shame!


(sarcasm obviously. you get it i'm sure. Quite a few posters on here seem sarcasm impaired among other things)

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Don't you know you're just supposed to suck it up, not cause a fuss like!
And with a non factory radio!

Shame!



Shame!




Shame!


(sarcasm obviously. you get it i'm sure. Quite a few posters on here seem sarcasm impaired among other things)

Its nothing to do with a sarcasm impairment, its an impairment to dealing with thread spoiling muppets.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Its nothing to do with a sarcasm impairment, its an impairment to dealing with thread spoiling muppets.

Meeeeeow !

grogi

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Its nothing to do with a sarcasm impairment, its an impairment to dealing with thread spoiling muppets.

Do ye thing that a standard TPL insurance imposed by law would work?
TPL is required by law, why not put its contract into law as well?

Liam McPoyle

grogi wrote: »

Do ye thing that a standard TPL insurance imposed by law would work?
TPL is required by law, why not put its contract into law as well?

It's already imposed by law.

If I get into someone's car, even without their permission, even without my own insurance and crash into someone else the person I crash into will be covered by the MIBI.

I can of course be prosecuted for theft and driving with no insurance and the owner of the car I stole could legally pursue me for damages but from a third party liability point of view the moment I sit into a vehicle the third party will be covered in the event of me crashing into them.

Aviva imposing this rule is a strange one as it negates the driving of other cars extension for the most part and as I said above, tp liability is always going to be in force regardless.

I would assume it has been imposed as a blocker to the fronting work around.

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Yeah that's my take too.
Except...
Now, as I've been told many times, I don't understand insurance, but if people driving unaccompanied on permits etc etc are still covered for third party.... won't the chancers still be covered here? But the company has a slightly better claim if the cost of chasing them through courts looks like it might just pay off?

Has anyone, ever, been prosecuted for "driving without insurance" due to breaking one of these technicalities? "Non standard audio" or what have you?

So, much like the 15 year car ban, a lot of genuine people are inconvenienced a lot more than a dedicated gang of chancers.

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

It's already imposed by law.

If I get into someone's car, even without their permission, even without my own insurance and crash into someone else the person I crash into will be covered by the MIBI.

I can of course be prosecuted for theft and driving with no insurance and the owner of the car I stole could legally pursue me for damages but from a third party liability point of view the moment I sit into a vehicle the third party will be covered in the event of me crashing into them.

Aviva imposing this rule is a strange one as it negates the driving of other cars extension for the most part and as I said above, tp liability is always going to be in force regardless.

I would assume it has been imposed as a blocker to the fronting work around.

Phew, I guess I'm not one of the thread spoiling muppets so if Saul T Nutzz agrees me. :cool:

grogi

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

It's already imposed by law.

If I get into someone's car, even without their permission, even without my own insurance and crash into someone else the person I crash into will be covered by the MIBI.

I can of course be prosecuted for theft and driving with no insurance and the owner of the car I stole could legally pursue me for damages but from a third party liability point of view the moment I sit into a vehicle the third party will be covered in the event of me crashing into them.

Aviva imposing this rule is a strange one as it negates the driving of other cars extension for the most part and as I said above, tp liability is always going to be in force regardless.

I would assume it has been imposed as a blocker to the fronting work around.

MIBI will seek to get the money back. This gives the innocent a bit of piece of mind, but not the genuinely insured people with seventeen caveats in the T&C. As this thread shows, the T&C of the TPL vary greatly between insurance providers...

For instance:
- what do I need to be covered for third party losses in my own car and "other car"?
** NCT?
** Tax?
** Roadworthiness?
** Driver's license?
** DUI
- what are the conditions the Insurer can seek compensation?

If the T&C of TPL policy were in law, all that would be bulk standard, and one could pimp-up the policy in the CASCO department...

mgbgt1978

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Is the restriction not to address the "insured on a 1l Micra, drive around in an otherwise-uninsurable Altezza registered in the mammy's name" market?

Judging by many of the lads I see in the industrial estate where I work this isn't a trivial number, unless they're all paying thousands for insurance.

I am fairly certain that my Quinn (remember them:rolleyes:) policy had the restriction that the other car had to be insured for DOC cover to be valid.

Quinn (now Liberty) are one of the few Companies that gave the "driving other cars" extention to almost everyone, including 18 year olds on their first policy. Ask my son, he's been with them for the past 5 years and automatically got this from day one. I'm with them myself on and off since they started, and always had DOC without any mention of a policy in force on other cars.
They don't even stipulate that the "other cars" have to have an NCT, simply that they are 'roadworthy'.....that would be open to interpretation, obviously .

Amanda.ie

savagethegoat wrote: »

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.

You have ten days to produce a cert of insurance, but you need to have a disc displayed at all times.

mgbgt1978

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/si/355/made/en/print

Section 5, paragraph (1) says otherwise.

biko

Thread is way off topic now
Hope you got your answers OP