Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Driving Other Cars cover

Options
  • 02-03-2023 2:29pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 38


    If I was to insure my car, with an added named driver, and I have Driving Other Cars cover,

    Is it possible for me to drive a 2nd car registered to an unrelated 3rd party with no insurance cover in place on that vehicle, and then the named driver can drive my car?

    The policy on my car has DOC cover that covers me to drive any car, with 3rd party cover, that I do not own. (I've double-checked with the insurer that there does not have to be a policy in place on the 2nd car)

    (Note: I'm well aware of what fronting is and there's nothing sketchy going on - I would still be driving my car more than the named driver and I do not own the 2nd car)

    Is there anything that I'm missing?



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Based on what you've told us, you're not insured with either Allianz, Liberty or Zurich. Those three companies insist that the car you borrow has a policy in place, even if that policy doesn't cover your use of the car. So there's nothing to stop you doing what you're proposing.

    One possible exception - some companies exclude driving a car that is owned by someone in your 'household'. But if the person who owns that car does not live with you and is not related to you, you should be ok.



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,006 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its not just those three anymore. My new 123/RSA policy insists on the other car being insured. I'm fairly sure it didn't before. Section vi of the booklet on driving other cars:

    "The car is insured under a current policy of insurance in the name of another person who is not Your spouse/partner;"

    This is rather annoying as my new policy has kicked in today and I need to move an uninsured car on Tuesday so will have to do a temp transfer!



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Cheers. There was a time when this was an urban myth which did the rounds and got repeated here endlessly even though it simply was not true. It was only a matter of time before the insurance companies decided that was a good idea. There's now four in the club.



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,006 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Weirdly, on the Zurich thing - we trawled the policy docs for the Zurich customers in my family today - one document does explicitly disallow it, but another doesn't. They are different docs for different start letters on the policies.

    They are now going to move the car and I'll follow in my own to pick them up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 65,469 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    Things seem to change. It looks like Liberty will now let you drive other cars and there is no longer a need for the car to be already insured:





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,533 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Friend of mine renewed his insurance last week, and his story was that the renewal quote came in pretty much the same as last year cost wise, but when he went through the details with the broker he got a shock. Asking about driving other peoples cars ( was on the old policy ) he was told that it was available, but as an extra, at a cost. So he went through the list, and discovered that a lot of what had been standard, was now extra and came at a cost. Anyone else have this experience when renewing this year? Seems to be a major cash gathering operation going on, like back in 2015/2016.



  • Registered Users Posts: 749 ✭✭✭GSBellew


    If you buy the other car you are not covered, regardless of it being registered to another person, in practice you would get away with it, but in the event of an accident it would be a different matter should the insurance company dig into it.

    It would also be an issue when the car is parked up, as it is then no longer covered by a policy which it needs to be in a public place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Nothing that you read in an FAQ or anywhere else on the Liberty website can override what's in the policy document.

    Which is, that for cover under 'driving other cars' to apply....

    1. the other car is not owned by your spouse / partner/cohabitant or employer or hired to them under a hire- purchase or lease agreement;

    2. you currently hold a full Irish, full United Kingdom (UK) or full European Union (EU) driving licence;

    3. the use of the other car is covered in your certificate of insurance;

    4. there is a current insurance policy in place in another person’s name that covers the other car;

    5. you are not covered under any other policy to drive the other car;

    6. you have the owner’s permission to drive the other car;

    7. the other car is not more than 15 years old;

    8. the other car is in a roadworthy condition and holds a valid NCT;

    9. the vehicle is not being driven outside the territorial limits; and

    10. you still have the insured vehicle and it holds a valid NCT and is in a roadworthy condition.

    Scroll to the bottom of this webpage and click on 'Car Insurance Policy Booklet' and see Section 7 Driving Other Cars on P.32 ....

    https://www.libertyinsurance.ie/car-insurance

    Post edited by coylemj on


  • Registered Users Posts: 65,469 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    I specifically asked my insurance broker about my situation and they came back and confirmed to me that the other car doesn't need to be insured on its own, but does need to have valid NCT and motor tax. I have this in writing.

    Perhaps that info on the website is outdated, @coylemj?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    I'm not sure that letter is worth the paper it's written on. Nor that a broker has the authority to provide a written interpretation of the policy. I never worked in the insurance business but I did work for a company where it was a sackable offence to provide a customer with what was known as a 'side letter' - a document that purported to vary or even provide an interpretation of our standard terms and conditions.

    In other circumstances, it may be that where there is a conflict between what the company tells you and what you have in writing from an agent of that company, the inconsistency will be overlooked in favour of the consumer. But if you study the Ts & Cs of any motor policy, it will say that the contract of insurance is based on the combination of the cert, the schedule and the policy document.

    So the policy rules and what I quoted is up on the Liberty website as their current policy document. Ipso facto it cannot be out of date. Did they send you a policy booklet at your last renewal?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 65,469 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    To be sure to be sure, I asked the broker to doublecheck. They contacted Liberty and the car DOES need to have cover already. The broker was shocked by this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    I've consistently said in this forum that you can never believe anything that a call agent tells you when you enquire about what your policy does and does not cover. I'm frankly amazed that your broker committed anything to paper. In the first instance, he probably rang a call agent who recklessly told him what he wanted to hear.

    The answer to every query about coverage is simple: read the policy document. It's all set out in plain English.



  • Registered Users Posts: 65,469 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    More worrying is that Liberty's own website specifies what I posted above. With zero mention of the car needing other insurance. In fact it makes things worse by specifying: "cover is not provided by any other insurance" and "you are not covered under any other policy to drive the other car"



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    In fact it makes things worse by specifying: "cover is not provided by any other insurance" and "you are not covered under any other policy to drive the other car"

    You'll find that condition in every policy, it's not related to the stipulation in 'driving other cars' that the other car must have a policy of it's own. What the above condition is saying is that your policy will not pay out if the car's own policy covers you. In effect, it's saying that you will only be covered under 'driving other cars' if you drive a car with no open driving and you are not a named driver.



  • Registered Users Posts: 65,469 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    Why don't they say it like that, much clearer! I think you have missed your calling, @coylemj 😃



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,982 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Policy wording, in conjunction with the schedule, is king. Don't forget, an insurer can amend any standard terms and conditions in individual circumstances, so what is on website FAQs etc carries little weight



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,455 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    I'm not sure what you mean by 'in individual circumstances'. If you download the policy document on the day your policy renews, won't that version apply to your cover for the 12 months until your next renewal?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,982 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    What I mean is that the policy document may be standardised, but the schedule can amend any of the conditions it may contain



Advertisement