Re: 3rd Party Insurance Entitlement

I expect it probably does, because you can only drive one car at once, so there's no significantly* greater risk to your insurance company whatever the insurance status of the other car.

• unless you normally drive a Micra and habitually 'borrow' a 911.

However, it would prove difficult to do this for any length of time, as the car would need to be insured to get it taxed, and they're catching up on the untaxed cars fairly quickly now.

AIUI, the third-party insurance would apply even if the other car was untaxed, without MOT, unroadworthy and previously written off, because the third-party insurance is to protect the interests of other people on the road, not you.

I, too, would be interested in an 'official' word on the matter. At least it would settle a few arguments on here!

Al

The clause about driving other cars, covers any car not owned by the policyholder, so if the car is registered in the wifes/husbands name. No problem.

As for your related question. Read your policy. It would appear that there are policies that restrict the driving of other cars to those insured by their owners. However, IME the majority do not. If your policy doesn't specifically state that the borrowed car must be insured, it is safe to assume it does not apply. It is inconceivable that such an important condition, if it were intended, would be omitted from a policies terms and conditions. Mike.

Yes indeed.

The last time I looked into this, my policy didn't specify that the "other" car needed to be insured in its own right. However, being mindful of the debate on this subject, I decided to pursue it with "Customer Service" (and this was before everything moved to Bangalore

- I probably wouldn't bother now). The initial response was that yes, there was no need for the other car to be insured in its own right. But the matter was then referred to the underwriters, who came back with the reply that it did in fact have to be insured.

I've seen countless threads on this subject and having read my own policy in detail I would say that the registered owner does not have to have insurance for someone else to drive their car. The person driving with your permission is covered by their own insurance (although different companies may have different rules so check first). My own policy covers me to drive any other vehicle not owned by myself (albeit at minimum 3rd party cover) provided there is no other insurance in force that can cover the same claim.

My policy also states that it covers any person USING BUT NOT DRIVING my car with my permission. So my understanding from that is that a person can legally drive my car covered by their own insurance but as soon as that person parks up and exits the car the insurance will then revert back to me. So legally I do not have to be insured for someone else to drive my car, they do so on their own policy but they will not be able to leave the car parked on the public highway unless I also have insurance.

I'd say if it was the intention of a husband with a poor driving record to avoid a large premium by simply swapping the registered details of his powerful car with that of his wife's runabout, the insurance company would have every right to refuse a claim.

Every policy includes a clause about disclosing material facts without being specific. And if the normal - or frequent user - of a car isn't the registered owner in a domestic situation, I'd say that *is* a material fact. The common way would be for all the immediate family to be named drivers for each car.

That wouldn't work, because the concession allowing the policy holder to drive a borrowed car, makes it quite clear that it only applies to occasional use. Emergency, car in dock, wont start, etc, is my interpretation of what it's actually meant to cover. Definitely not prolonged or regular use. The policyholder _must_ be the main driver.

That's the way my wife and I have it setup. We are both named drivers on each others policies. As you point out though, I think if either one of us was convicted of dangerous or careless driving, it would probably be regarded as a material fact by both insurance Co's. Mike.

If that were indeed the case, I think they would find it very difficult to prove in a court of law. What excuse could they offer as to why it was not clearly stated in their policy. The policy contains the terms of your contract with the insurance Co. They can't add conditions to it once you've signed up without at least informing you. Mike.

My policy does not say 'using but not driving'. The way mine is worded, suggests I'm insured to drive a borrowed car without restrictions, apart from permission, qualifications, etc. My interpretation of that is that I'm insured whilst I am 'in charge' of that car. Not just while I'm driving it. IOW my cover on it doesn't lapse as soon as I park it on the highway and walk away. I'm still in charge of it and will be until I return it to it's owner.

So legally I do not have to be insured for someone else to

In answer to that would be to ask who would be legally responsible, and liable, if the borrower walked away from the car, and the car rolled down a hill whatever, and caused damage or injury to a third party? Personally I can't see the law coming down on you, or how the borrowers insurance Co could justify passing the claim on to your insurance Co. Mike.

It might on *your* policy, It doesn't do so on all (or even most, IME).

That is your interpretation of what is intended. But it isn't what would happen in law.

If the certificate says he can drive cars belonging to others, then he can do so.

No limitations unless specified.

Definitely. You have to declare any convictions or accidents of all named drivers.

If I were to go simply by the written terms on my policy, I would take it to mean that I could drive any car that didn't belong to me and wasn't rented any time I wanted for as long as I wanted. It says nothing else.

I'd not be too sure. 'Disclosure of material facts' is always somewhere in any policy.

I've been with several different Co's over the last few years. All have had restrictions on driving 'borrowed' cars.

As far as the law is concerned, production of your cerficate would be enough to show you're insured to drive the 'borrowed' car. In that sense I agree.

One limit which IME is invariably specified, is that the policyholder must not be the main driver of a 'borrowed' car. I'd be very surprised if any of your policies have said otherwise.

You'd 'get away' with driving the car as far as the law was concerned, but in the event of an accident involving a heavy claim, and if the insurance Co found out you were indeed the main driver, you could find yourself being sued by your insurance Co for reimbursement of their losses, as you have broken the terms of the cover. Mike.

Except that you must not be the main driver. That precludes you from using it for as long you want. Mike.

And what "material fact" do you think might need disclosing here?

If the policy says the insured can drive other cars not belonging to them, and there are no further restrictions on that, then there are no further restrictions.

Your experience is different from mine.

Although I have only had a few different companies (Frizzell are so good I haven't seen the need to change for the last 10 years), none of the ones I have seen have had any restrictions beyond what is on the certificate.

The current certificate says "The Policyholder may also drive with the owners permission a private motor car not owned by the Policyholder and not hired to the Policyholder under a hire purchase agreement".

On the back of the certificate, it says the vehicle must be registered in GB, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, and the cover is third party only.

There is no further restriction in the main policy document.

Which is what really matters.

The certificate is the legal document that states what insurance you are entitled to.

My current policy certainly doesn't specify that (see above).

Obviously, there is more difference between "standard" clauses between different insurers than either of us had realised at the start of this thread.

I fully accept that you would not be acting within the spirit of what was intended. But technically, with a policy like mine, you would not have broken the terms of the cover.

I certainly do not intend ever driving another vehicle under that clause in anything other than abnormal situations, because apart from anything else, unless it was a very cheap car, I would not be happy without fully comprehensive insurance on what I was driving.

Here's the wording from a typical Norwich Union Direct policy:

"Under the terms of section 2 of the policy - Liability to Third Parties - the policyholder may subject to the owner's express agreement also drive a Motor Car not belonging to him/her or hired to him/her under a hire purchase or lease agreement."

Only if those terms were specified in the policy.

Have it your own way. Many people look on it as a way of trying to get round high insurance premiums. If that is their intention, they are likely to come unstuck.

Would you lend your expensive car - insured for your use only - to someone who was to drive it on their own insurance which only covered the legal minimum?

In the questions you get asked as you apply, do you not get asked "Are you the main driver on any other vehicles?". If you have answered "no" to this, then if you are the main driver on another vehicle (but on the "other cars" bit of your own insurance) then surely you have given false information in your application and the insurance position would be less than perfect?

Al

That is the certificate, which is merely a summary of the basics. You'd need to wade through the full policy - and even then they might have 'catch all' clauses.