Insurance and driving "other" cars

bob2oo7 · 14-07-2010 12:05PM #1

Just a very quick one

My insurance covers me to drive other cars and I'm covered Third Pary

Does this mean I can drive "any" car (ie, one that is not currently insured by its ownwer?)

Will my insurance cover me anyway?

Or does it have to be insured by the registered owner?

Thanks in advance

stevenmu · 14-07-2010 12:06PM

It depends on the exact terms given by your insurance company, but most if not all of them require the other car to be insured.

djimi · 14-07-2010 12:07PM

You need to check with your insurer; it varies from policy to policy.

Read your policy also; it probably says so in there.

mb1725 · 14-07-2010 12:11PM

Usually other car must be insured independently, ie loan car or similar.

seamus · 14-07-2010 12:12PM

As said, it varies from policy to policy.

In general, the "driving other cars" clause normally covers you third-party only provided that the car doesn't belong to you or your spouse, and you are not otherwise covered on the vehicle (e.g. if you're driving a loaner from a garage, you're covered under their policy and not under your own, so the "driving other cars" clause doesn't apply).

"Open drive" is a different thing which allows anyone to drive your car provided that they have their own insurance policy on another car (and are over a certain age and fully licenced usually).

Most people confuse the two. You should always check your own policy handbook before hopping into someone's car.

Barr · 14-07-2010 01:27PM

As long as the car is not registered to you , your insured TPO. The car does not need to be currently insured either.

Tefral · 14-07-2010 01:47PM

Barr wrote: »

The car does not need to be currently insured either.

This is the actually the case in MOST policys, at this stage ive been with most of the Main underwriters and none of them required that the car be insured under another policy. At the end of the day if you crash, your policy will take the hit not the other persons.

Normally the rule is that the car:
1. Must not be registered to you.
2. Must not be registered to your employer.
3. Not leased to you under a Hire Purchase agreement
4. You have the owners permission to use it ie. not stolen..
5. Not in the motortrade

stevenmu · 14-07-2010 03:08PM

cronin_j wrote: »

At the end of the day if you crash, your policy will take the hit not the other persons.

Yes, but many policies do require the other vehicle to be insured anyway. The reason they do this is to reduce the number of people who buy and insure a 1ltr Polo, then get their "father" to buy a more powerful car which they then drive day to day.

furtzy · 14-07-2010 03:22PM

Barr wrote: »

As long as the car is not registered to you , your insured TPO. The car does not need to be currently insured either.

Always states the other car must have a valid policy in place on any policy I've ever had.

Prevents the fraud issue the above poster mentioned

Alun · 14-07-2010 03:28PM

stevenmu wrote: »

Yes, but many policies do require the other vehicle to be insured anyway. The reason they do this is to reduce the number of people who buy and insure a 1ltr Polo, then get their "father" to buy a more powerful car which they then drive day to day.

That's what I thought too .. it's a loophole the size of a barn door otherwise.

JustAddWater · 14-07-2010 03:31PM

My insurance company explicitly states the car can't be registered in a direct family members name either!

Alun wrote: »

That's what I thought too .. it's a loophole the size of a barn door otherwise.

seamus · 14-07-2010 03:44PM

furtzy wrote: »

Always states the other car must have a valid policy in place on any policy I've ever had.

Never stated it on any policy I've ever had. Checked Hibernian, Quinn and FBD today, they don't require it.

stevenmu wrote: »

Yes, but many policies do require the other vehicle to be insured anyway. The reason they do this is to reduce the number of people who buy and insure a 1ltr Polo, then get their "father" to buy a more powerful car which they then drive day to day.

That's not a loophole though in reality it's just a case of doing it and hoping that nobody cops on. It's fraud, and in the eyes of the law they aren't insured. Ownership isn't conferred by a VLC, so if the insurance company can be satisfied that the young person paid for the vehicle and drives it on a day-to-day basis, then the vehicle belongs to him and he is driving/has driven uninsured.

There are also issues around dependent adults living at home and ownership of family assets and such.

I never saw this clause available on a policy until I was 25, so I suspect that young drivers don't have this clause on their policy and are not allowed to drive other cars at all, which is how they combat the above fraud.

Divorce Referendum · 14-07-2010 03:51PM

Barr wrote: »

As long as the car is not registered to you , your insured TPO. The car does not need to be currently insured either.

Funnily enough i have my new ford focus insured with quinn direct. Brought it into the garage for a bit of work one day and I still had my previous car which was still registered in my name. Quinn transfered insurance for me because the fous was at a mechanics and would only do it on that basis. Strange but true.

14-07-2010 03:58PM

Zurich is another one to add to the list of insurers that don't require the other car to be insured. I'm fairly sure Axa and Allianz are the same but am open to correction on that.

Some insurers have a clause in place that you cannot drive a car with a bigger engine than your own, which closes the loophole mentioned above.

Mine, iirc, states that it can be no bigger than a 2.0 litre.

Corkladddd!! · 14-07-2010 04:04PM

Sitec wrote: »

I know a lad who had this drive other cars policy. Bought a fiesta van and insured it himself. Bought a 300zx TT and insured his father on it.

Drove the ZX for about 2 years and never got any hassle from the gardai.:eek:

Are you sure? fiesta would probably have commercial rather than private insurance and i know that the 3rd party extension doesnt cover a commercial vehicle (I rang and asked re:driving the jeep at home) only other passanger vehicles

Del2005 · 14-07-2010 04:34PM

Sitec wrote: »

I know a lad who had this drive other cars policy. Bought a fiesta van and insured it himself. Bought a 300zx TT and insured his father on it.

Drove the ZX for about 2 years and never got any hassle from the gardai.:eek:

It's not the Gardaí you have to worry about. Gardaí don't really care once you can show a cert

It's if something happens and a claim is made, then the s**te will hit the fan.

Insurance companies really really don't like paying out money so there's no point in giving them an easy way out.

stevenmu · 14-07-2010 05:02PM

seamus wrote: »

That's not a loophole though in reality it's just a case of doing it and hoping that nobody cops on. It's fraud, and in the eyes of the law they aren't insured. Ownership isn't conferred by a VLC, so if the insurance company can be satisfied that the young person paid for the vehicle and drives it on a day-to-day basis, then the vehicle belongs to him and he is driving/has driven uninsured.

True, but that wouldn't stop people trying it and thinking that they would get away with it. There have been many posts on the forum here by people thinking of trying that very thing.

Requiring the other car to be insured is at least some disincentive to people trying it. Although to be honest I've just assumed that this is the reason for the requirement, I've nothing really to back it up.

furtzy · 14-07-2010 05:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Zurich is another one to add to the list of insurers that don't require the other car to be insured. I'm fairly sure Axa and Allianz are the same but am open to correction on that.

Some insurers have a clause in place that you cannot drive a car with a bigger engine than your own, which closes the loophole mentioned above.

Mine, iirc, states that it can be no bigger than a 2.0 litre.

Strange..... AXA and Allianz had this stipulation on my policies in the past. Current insurer RSA also states this.

Double check the terms in your policy...usually spelt out in legal jargon

cpoh1 · 14-07-2010 05:40PM

furtzy wrote: »

Strange..... AXA and Allianz had this stipulation on my policies in the past. Current insurer RSA also states this.

Double check the terms in your policy...usually spelt out in legal jargon

Im with AXA and they dont require the other car to be insured independently, partner is with allianz and they dont either.

I confirmed by email and phone with both in the past.

Hibernian and quinn are other companies that dont require it either. Im yet to hear of one that does to be honest.

The only issue you have is that gardai stipulate that you require a valid insurance disc in the window.

Alanstrainor · 14-07-2010 05:42PM

Sitec wrote: »

I know a lad who had this drive other cars policy. Bought a fiesta van and insured it himself. Bought a 300zx TT and insured his father on it.

Drove the ZX for about 2 years and never got any hassle from the gardai.:eek:

Well he wouldn't get any hassle unless they really checked up on it. If he was involved in an accident, things would start to get messy.

Barr · 15-07-2010 12:23AM

furtzy wrote: »

Always states the other car must have a valid policy in place on any policy I've ever had.

Prevents the fraud issue the above poster mentioned

no it doesn't - prove it ?

Esel · 15-07-2010 02:08AM

Corkladddd!! wrote: »

Are you sure? fiesta would probably have commercial rather than private insurance and i know that the 3rd party extension doesnt cover a commercial vehicle (I rang and asked re:driving the jeep at home) only other passanger vehicles

What you''re not grasping here is that the other vehicle is not commercial.

Barr · 15-07-2010 02:43AM

Sitec wrote: »

I'm not saying it's right and I agree 100% on the insurance side of thigs. At the same time though it shows how many loopholes are in the current system!

"Drive Other Cars" should not be allowed without 5 years NCB.

I agree there should be some stipulations; the system is open to exploitation at the moment.
.

2yung2adm · 15-07-2010 03:40AM

I honestly do not know where some posters get their information on this subject.
I have been insured by many insurance companies down through the years. I have always had the driving of other cars on my policy.
It has never mentioned that the other car has to be otherwise insured.

It simply states that the other car must not be owned by you/ or emploiyer, hired out or leased etc.
It does not state anywhere that it has to be insured by another person.
In fact a car cannot be legally covered by two or more sets of insurance.
The only stumbling block is the display of a valid insurance disk.

This may be overcome if in the even of being stopped by contacting your insurance company and explaining to them that you were driving car B while your own was off the road.
An insurance disc is not required to be displayed within 10 days of the date of authentication of the insurance cert

Esel · 15-07-2010 03:59AM

2yung2adm wrote: »

I honestly do not know where some posters get their information on this subject.
I have been insured by many insurance companies down through the years. I have always had the driving of other cars on my policy.
It has never mentioned that the other car has to be otherwise insured.

Some people get it from the interweb; the smart ones get it from their insurance policy.

The fact is: some policies state the other vehicle must be insured; others don't.

2yung2adm wrote: »

In fact a car cannot be legally covered by two or more sets of insurance.

Maybe, but your driving of another vehicle only covers you for third party claims. The vehicle could be insured comprehensively by the owner, and in the event that you crash it, the owner could claim for the cost of having it repaired under their own policy.

Corkladddd!! · 15-07-2010 08:55AM

esel wrote: »

What you''re not grasping here is that the other vehicle is not commercial.

I was simply saying that my private policy doesn't allow driving of commercial vehicles on third party extension, so I'd be careful because on that premise I would presume that a commercial policy doesn't allow driving of private vehicles. Some people might not have checked this out properly and just saw 3rd party and presumed all was ok......

15-07-2010 08:58AM

furtzy wrote: »

Always states the other car must have a valid policy in place on any policy I've ever had.

Prevents the fraud issue the above poster mentioned

Stated that on my Hibernian policy years ago, since then I've had Quinn, Hibernian and travellers and they don't require it.

15-07-2010 09:34AM

JustAddWater wrote: »

My insurance company explicitly states the car can't be registered in a direct family members name either!

That is a ridiculous stipulation and I doubt it exists except for a husband/wife not being allowd to drive each others car using the extension. I would say the majority use of the driving others cars extension is when borrowing a parents or other close relations car.

Corkladddd!! wrote: »

I was simply saying that my private policy doesn't allow driving of commercial vehicles on third party extension, so I'd be careful because on that premise I would presume that a commercial policy doesn't allow driving of private vehicles. Some people might not have checked this out properly and just saw 3rd party and presumed all was ok......

When I had a car-van insured with Quinn I was covered to drive other cars but not other commercials.

furtzy · 15-07-2010 09:40AM

Barr wrote: »

no it doesn't - prove it ?

Can't find the old policy but new policy will be with me in next couple of days so I'll post up the exact text then

seamus · 15-07-2010 09:51AM

2yung2adm wrote: »

In fact a car cannot be legally covered by two or more sets of insurance.

That's actually not entirely true. You can take out multiple insurance policies on the one vehicle, but in the event of an accident, the cost is shared equally among the insurers - i.e. you don't get a full payout from each insurer. So there's no benefit to insuring things multiple times.

In the case of car insurance afaik, it's the insurer providing the most explicit cover who shoulders the cost. So if I'm a named driver on my mate's car, but my insurance policy also covers driving other cars, then in the event of a crash it's my mate's insurance company who pays out because I'm specifically insured to drive that vehicle (as opposed to being generally insured to drive any vehicle).

2yung2adm · 15-07-2010 12:02PM

seamus wrote: »

That's actually not entirely true. You can take out multiple insurance policies on the one vehicle, but in the event of an accident, the cost is shared equally among the insurers - i.e. you don't get a full payout from each insurer. So there's no benefit to insuring things multiple times.

In the case of car insurance afaik, it's the insurer providing the most explicit cover who shoulders the cost. So if I'm a named driver on my mate's car, but my insurance policy also covers driving other cars, then in the event of a crash it's my mate's insurance company who pays out because I'm specifically insured to drive that vehicle (as opposed to being generally insured to drive any vehicle).

I can assure you that you are incorrect.It comes down to 'Double Indemnity' You cannot have two or more insurance policies attached to the one car. You can have one insurance two cars but not the other way around and of course a trade policy where it is just the holders name that appears on the disc, that is an example of one policy several cars.
And just for the record you cannot have two tax discs displayed on the one windscreen even if the second one is expired-it is an offence.

Show me the proof and I will eat humble pie but I think I will have a lot of sandwiches eaten before I get to eat the pie

Insurance and driving "other" cars

Comments