car insurance on a scrapped car?

I don't see why not, as long as you're only thinking of occasionally driving someone elses car. If your idea though, is to borrow another car on a semi permanent basis, you'll almost certaiinly find it contravenes the terms of your insurance. Mike.

IIAC if the scrapped car was insured fully comp then the insurance cover ceases when they pay out on it and it is scrapped. That used to be the case at any rate, (assuming it was written off in an accident).

My daughter just took out motor insurance and it was made clear the car had to be her car and registered in her name (not some shonky local scrappie).

DG

Good point. I was assuming the OP had scrapped the car, without actually disposing of it. As you say, if the car is scrapped officially, insurance cover ceases. Mike.

Yes.

Firstly insurance is only valid on a "roadworthy" car.

Secondly, your insurance would only cover you third party on another car if the owner of that vehicle has their own policy on it.

Thirdly, if there is no existing policy on the car you wish to drive then you won't be able to tax it.

sPoNiX

I'm not sure, BUT, isn't insurance void if you no longer own the vehicle.

- Fatsod.

That would be fraud.

What do you think? Why not ask your insurers?

Si

Only your third point is correct.

Your second point comes up with almost monotonous regularity. In general, a car does not have to be insured by it's keeper for anyone to drive it, if their policy covers them for driving a car 'not belonging to them' etc.

The first point implies that your insurance lapses if your car fails an MOT or is off the road having essential repairs done.

I suggest you Google on the second point. You'll find many posts exploding the myth of, 'a borrowed car must be insured by it's keeper'. Mike.

Although it may already be taxed.

Rob Graham

sPoNiX wrote: || On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:47:50 +0100, Dave Kinder wrote: || ||| Would there be a problem in keeping car insurance (at least till it ||| expires) on a scrapped car as it entitles me to drive other cars 3rd ||| party. || || Yes. || || Firstly insurance is only valid on a "roadworthy" car.

Simply not true. If it were then every motorist stopped for a defective light would also be ticketed for having no insurance.

|| Secondly, your insurance would only cover you third party on another || car if the owner of that vehicle has their own policy on it.

Can you provide a clause from an actual policy or cite some case law to support this theory?

|| Thirdly, if there is no existing policy on the car you wish to drive || then you won't be able to tax it.

True but irrelevant to the question.

Yes it would be a problem. If you are insuring something that does not exist then you are committing fraud.

3rd party insurance with these policies is designed to be used in emergencies, or at the most in a very limited capacity only.

Matt.

I'm sorry, yes it does. I have discussed this at great length with my insurance company and they say you are covered driving a car you have borrowed only if there is a pre-existing insurance policy on the car, in the name of the keeper.

The purpose of the "Drive a car not belonging to you" is purely intended to cover you for test driving other vehicles and also loan vehicles when yours is off the road.

Yes, you'd probably get away with it if stopped by the police but you'd encounter problems if you have an accident.

Also, you will be unable to obtain car tax on this basis unless the policy specifically covers the vehicle.

I suggest you contact your insurer for clarification!

sPoNiX

From a typical DOCE statement:

"If your certificate permits you to drive someone else's car then it should only be in the event of an emergency"

In other words you are only covered to drive a borrowed car under exceptional circumstances, ie. NOT as a regular vehicle and NOT without good reason.

Also:

" ..Your car is registered in the UK with the DVLA...Under European law we can only insure UK regsitered vehicles"

So you cannot insure a scrapped vehicle.

sPoNiX

From a typical motor insurance declaration (In this case "Elephant"):

"I undertake that my car is in a roadworthy condition.."

Also: "ALL car insurance policies require your vehicle to be in a roadworthy condition"

(From:

sPoNiX

The message from snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (sPoNiX) contains these words:

I've read my insurance papers really carefully and found nothing to support this. You'd think for something as important as this they'd make it if not clear at least present in the fine print.

Thats not the same thing as implying that insurance becomes invalid if the car ceases to be roadworthy. Insurance companies are specifically and explicitly prevented by the Road Traffic Act from disclaiming cover due to lack of roadworthiness

Brian

Indeed , or they could deny a claim if your car was parked up with a falt tyre when nicked.

I did some years ago out of interest when the point came up on uk.legal. In fact I think I've enquired twice with two different insurers. There was no requirement for the borrowed car to be the subject of any other insurance policy for the borrower to have road traffic act cover under the terms of his own policy on his own car. However, cover ceased when the borrowed car was not actually being driven so if you parked it to go shopping it became uninsured when you left it.

You were therefore covered for a test drive of a car you were thinking of buying as long as the journey started and ended on private property. It pretty much stops you from using someone else's car on a daily basis if you ever need to park it on a public road.

If your insurance company told you differently then perhaps we can only conclude that insurance companies differ in their understanding or application of the terms of their policies.

How do you know it's a fraud? It might be a renault.