Insurance question - driving other cars

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