Car Insurance - Driving Other Cars

theShawzer wrote: »

Does this mean I can drive a car that does not belong to me even if the owner does not have a policy on it but it it taxed and NCT'd etc? Or does it just mean I must not have it insured?

Thanks

Owner doesn't need to have insurance policy on it, but you must remember that this covers you when driving this car only. Once you park the car on public road and leave, your insurance doesn't cover whatever happens after, so first of all owner might get a fine for having uninsured vehicle parked on public road, and in worse case f.e. if handbrake fails and car rolls down and destroys something, owner will have to pay from his own pocket for damage, as there is no cover on it.

In relation to having it taxed and NCTed, surely that's legal requirement, but I doubt your insurance policy requires vehicle to be taxed, so even if it's not taxed, you are still covered to drive that car. In relation to NCT it might be similar, but it might be that your policy requires car to be NCTed, and then your cover might be affected if it isn't.

theShawzer wrote: »

Thanks for the speedy reply. I just seems weird that it doesn't need insurance because it wouldn't have a disc on the window. I assume in the event of a checkpoint I would have to bring my documentation with me in the car?

In the worst case you can be fined on the checkpoint for non displaying of insurance disc.

CiniO wrote: »

you can be fined on the checkpoint for non displaying of insurance disc.

Law that needs changing I reckon. As long as the driver can prove insurance is in place, there should really be no issue.

To add to the OP question...what if a family member owns the car and it has tax and NCT? Does "drive other cars" apply here too?

CiniO wrote: »

What difference would it make to OP insurance company if car is insured by owner or not.
In case of an accident caused by OP, it will be OP's insurer who will have to pay for damage, no one else.

Well it'll make one hell of a difference if they don;t cover him unless there's a policy already on the car. :eek:

Fair point if they do cover him though. I'd be more interested in the number of cars parked on streets and no longer insured once the driver gets out.

goz83 wrote: »

To add to the OP question...what if a family member owns the car and it has tax and NCT? Does "drive other cars" apply here too?

According to OP's policy - yes it does apply here too.
If nothing in the policy states you can not drive a car of your family member on third party extension, then it pretty much means you can.

coylemj wrote: »

Note that Axa do not cover vans of any kind under the 'driving other cars' clause.

Nor do Liberty as the OP states.

Most insurers exclude commercial vehicles in a third party extension for obvious reasons.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Legally a car must have insurance to be on the road. A policy from another car for another driver does not suffice.

Wrong....my third party extention like most others does not require any policy on the other car. My policy applies if I drive the other car.

No disc on display is a guards issue you may have though

Cool...So now I can buy that Ferrari...put it in the wifes name, park up the fiesta and leave a a burn mark all the way up the M50 with my "drive other cars" policy that cost me a cuple of hundred on the fiesta :pac::D;)

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I'm 100% sure about it for UK law. In Irish law it may be different.
In UK law there is a good example on Road Wars where someone was pulled and had valid insurance for his own car which covered him but the owner was uninsured so the car was seized and he got the fine.
Also my insurance policy documents state that the car must not be in my name and must have its own valid insurance policy.

What insurer has such rules?

If anyone has an insurance policy that specifically states that the car does not have to be insured it would be interesting to know about.

Why would it state that? If something is not required there is no need to include in policy.
Only things that are required need to be mentioned.

Stating in the policy that car doesn't need to have it's own insurance if used under third party extension, would be the same nonsense, as stating that car doesn't need to be blue for the extension to work.
If it doesn't say about the requirement, then it's not required. It doesn't need to specifically say something is not required.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I'm 100% sure about it for UK law. In Irish law it may be different.

It is different then.

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—

(a) an approved policy of insurance whereby the user or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, is insured against all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, or

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

According to it, it's enough if person driving is covered to drive.
Nothing mention about a need for separate insurance policy attached to the vehicle.

CiniO wrote: »

Yes.


Yes.
If I leave your car parked in public place, then you are liable for having your vehicle in public place uninsured.

But if I drive it from your driveway to my driveway without leaving the vehicles, then nearly everything is being legal, with exception of displaying insurance disc, which might attract small fine.

I agree with you but it looks like more of a legal loophole than the law. All it would take is a line like "Its a criminal offence to drive a car which does not have an insurance policy attached to it" to be hidden somewhere and that's you getting done.

It sounds link the "Driving other cars" option is intended to extend coverage to damage caused by you in another car and not to provide insurance cover to put another car on the road.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I agree with you but it looks like more of a legal loophole than the law. All it would take is a line like "Its a criminal offence to drive a car which does not have an insurance policy attached to it" to be hidden somewhere and that's you getting done.

It sounds link the "Driving other cars" option is intended to extend coverage to damage caused by you in another car and not to provide insurance cover to put another car on the road.

I don't know if it's a loophole or was it intended, but that's how it works, and origin doesn't really matter.

I generally still have problem with understanding ideology of Irish insurance system.

When I lived in Poland all was simple. Car owner buys insurance on his car, and everyone is open to drive that car. Insurance will cover damage caused by whoever drives that car - so in short words insurance is attached to the car.

When I was moving to Ireland I was told that Insurance doesn't cover the car but the driver. But quickly I found out that it's actually both. Insurance is attached to the driver and car. So if I have a car I must insure it, but I also must declare the drivers. The policy might allow me to drive other cars, but some policies don't. All this hassle that people have to go through to actually make sure they are insured and legal is unnecesserily complicated here.

CiniO wrote: »

I don't know if it's a loophole or was it intended, but that's how it works, and origin doesn't really matter.

I generally still have problem with understanding ideology of Irish insurance system.

When I lived in Poland all was simple. Car owner buys insurance on his car, and everyone is open to drive that car. Insurance will cover damage caused by whoever drives that car - so in short words insurance is attached to the car.

When I was moving to Ireland I was told that Insurance doesn't cover the car but the driver. But quickly I found out that it's actually both. Insurance is attached to the driver and car. So if I have a car I must insure it, but I also must declare the drivers. The policy might allow me to drive other cars, but some policies don't. All this hassle that people have to go through to actually make sure they are insured and legal is unnecesserily complicated here.

Our system would be ideal if there was no legal obligation for insurance. What we have here is that an insurance company has through admission claimed to cover an uninsured car. Anywhere else that would be fine but since its a crime to drive an uninsured car they would need to spell it out!

An interesting test would be to go and try and tax an uninsured car saying that your policy from a other car covers it legally. (Assure them that you never park the car on a public road.)

coylemj wrote: »

The issue that people are overlooking is that what is required is that the driver's use of the car is insured. There is no requirement in Irish law that the car is explicitly specified on an insurance policy. What is required is that the person who is driving the car at a particular point in time is covered to drive it, either by his own or the car owner's policy, it doesn't matter which.

But when car is parked in public place and no one is driving it, then only way for it to be insured is to have a policy attached to this car.

And there is a requirement for car parked in public place to be insured.

rex-x wrote: »

Your third party extension covers you whilst you are in charge of the car, just because you get out doesn't mean the insurance ends.
If you go to pay for petrol and the car explodes then you still have third party cover, similarly if the car rolls down a hill when you are in the shop you will still be covered!

What makes you think that?

Even in this thread there is quote proving otherwise.

From OP's policy:

Driving other cars
If your certificate of insurance says so, we will also cover you, the policyholder,
for your liability to other people while you are driving any other private motor
car which you do not own or have not hired or leased, as long as:

In case of this policy, third party extension works only when you are driving.
Not when you are parked.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

its a crime to drive an uninsured car car uninsured

I think thats the correct meaning

Only thing this thread has taught me is that my da is taking a trip to the NCT centre in the Octavia pretty soon

Supergurrier wrote: »

Only thing this thread has taught me is that my da is taking a trip to the NCT centre in the Octavia pretty soon

Try and get him to tax it too! Then they will have to check the documents and the law.

rex-x wrote: »

I think you are taking the term 'Driving' too literally, Try ringing Liberty and they will be happy to clear it up for you.
If I was to say I was 'Driving' your car for the day but I stopped for lunch etc you would still say I was 'Driving' it for the day! Same goes for this, cover does not end the second you get out, what if you were to be ejected from the car in an accident?

You are actually right here.

I checked and in liberty insurance policy is states the following:

Being driven – being in the charge of a person who has driven, or will drive
the vehicle, even if they are not driving at the time.

So this means, that "driving other cars third party extension" will cover the car even when parked, provided that person with the extension is in charge of the vehicle.

I'm not sure if it's the same with every insurer, but that's what it is with Liberty.

EDIT: I checked with my insurer (Allianz) and there's no definition of "driving". So I would be bit wary of leaving the car uninsured hoping my policy will cover it under "driving other cars" as I'm in charge of the car.
I'm sure if there was a claim (which is obviously unlikely for parked car, but still possible) then my insurance would find a lawyer which would convince the judge that driving is not the same as being in charge of vehicle.

CiniO wrote: »

They don't check insurance details you provide in motor tax offices properly.
I bet you could produce completely random number as policy number, and you would still get the vehicle taxed.

I do this all the time when I am too lazy to check my policy number, never had an issue

CiniO wrote: »

You are actually right here.

I checked and in liberty insurance policy is states the following:



So this means, that "driving other cars third party extension" will cover the car even when parked, provided that person with the extension is in charge of the vehicle.

I'm not sure if it's the same with every insurer, but that's what it is with Liberty.

EDIT: I checked with my insurer (Allianz) and there's no definition of "driving". So I would be bit wary of leaving the car uninsured hoping my policy will cover it under "driving other cars" as I'm in charge of the car.
I'm sure if there was a claim (which is obviously unlikely for parked car, but still possible) then my insurance would find a lawyer which would convince the judge that driving is not the same as being in charge of vehicle.

I don't think there is a judge on earth who would buy that, there has to be an element of common sense to the application of laws and I think it is clear enough that it covers you whilst in charge rather than whilst actually driving, I mean when at traffic lights you are not really driving technically, more parked but inside the car!
There needs to be a line between being covered and not covered and in my head its quite clear that whilst you are borrowing said car your insurance covers it until you hand it back to the owner/other authorized user.
There is no need to over complicate it!

rex-x wrote: »

I don't think there is a judge on earth who would buy that, there has to be an element of common sense to the application of laws and I think it is clear enough that it covers you whilst in charge rather than whilst actually driving, I mean when at traffic lights you are not really driving technically, more parked but inside the car!

I could bet there is some law describing it in details that being stopped in traffic (f.e. for traffic lights or traffic jam) is not parking. But I can't find it at the moment.

There needs to be a line between being covered and not covered and in my head its quite clear that whilst you are borrowing said car your insurance covers it until you hand it back to the owner/other authorized user.
There is no need to over complicate it!

Indeed there should be line between being covered and not, but when my insurance policy says that it covers me to "drive" other cars, then I can't really expect them to cover the car as well when I park it, unless it's clearly worded in the policy like in OP's case of Liberty. Unfortunately in my policy it's not worded like that, so I'm assuming I can't.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Anyone with ROI insurance want to call their insurer in the morning?

Generally speaking when you are buying insurance you are signing a contract with insurance company and all the rules of this contract are covered in Insurance law and the policy document (maybe there is something more as well)
If there are any doubt's there's very little point in asking insurer, as in case of argument during the claim, this will be solved in the court, basing on those sources I mentioned.

So in general there's no point in ringing insurers and asking questions, as they can answer anything they wish, and then in case of the claim they can change their mind. What's important is what is written in Policy.

I tried it many times. I rang my insurer and asked a question. Answer was A.
Then 5 minutes later I rang again, was connected to different person, asked exactly the same question, and answer was B (completely opposite to answer A).

And this wasn't just single occurance, but it happens all the time with most insurers.

So IMO, there's absolutely no point in ringing them. Just go in line what the insurance policy and law tells you.