Re: 3rd Party Insurance Entitlement

: 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.

Not on any of the policies I have at the moment, it doesn't.

For example:

Policy: Cover provided for you ... The same cover will apply if you are driving in the United Kingdom any car which the certificate of motor insurance allows you to drive provided you have the owner's permission to drive

Certificate: The policyholder may also drive any motor car not belonging to him (her) and not hired to him (her) under a nire purchase agreement.

Schedule: no reference

Policy: Driving Other vehicles. We will also provide the cover shown above (if this is specified in your certificate of motor insurance) to drive any private motor car that you do not own and have not hired under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as you have the owner's permission to drive the car. You are not insured against the following * Any loss or damage to the vehicle you are driving * And event which ocurs outside the United Kingdom * Any event which occurs when the insurance is not in the name of an individual prson * Any liability if you no longer have possession of the insured vehicle

Certificate: The policyholder may also drive a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as the policyholder has the owner's permission to drive the car

Schedule: no reference

So, nothing about "occasional use", nothing about who the "main driver" is, nothing about the other car "being insured".

Ian

: 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.

As per my previous post, neither Swinton (it's a Group AMA policy) nor RH have any such restriction. The other two policies I have at the moment are limited-mileage classics ones and don't have the driving-other-cars clause.

Ian

: In theory you could insure a Micra, buy an older Jaguar, or other higher : performance taxed car, register it in your wifes name, and drive it until : the tax ran out on the premium of a Micra.

My policies are explicit that the car must be /owned/ by someone else. That is not the same as "registered to".

Ian

: I made a mistake like that once when I was working in the Middle East. : We had a speed boat and I handled the fleet of vehicles so that became : my responsibility too and I insured the boat for ?250K third party : risk. When the companys insurance folks back in london saw what I done : they immediately increased the risk to ?2 million and that was in : 1970;-)

My glider is insured for ten million third party. You can do a hell of a lot of expensive damage at an airport with a quarter of a ton of plywood...

Ian

Fair point, but if all the paperwork, inc bill of sale etc, is in the wifes name, she would be the legal owner. In fact simply giving the car to her, and her registering it would be enough to satisfy the law. Where a husband and wife is concerned there's little point in not ensuring that ownership is beyond question. Mike.

There is, IMO, little point in even trying this on.

I'm sure the insurance company would argue that husband and wife actually own all their vehicles jointly, and unless they are a couple with *very* clear separation of all their finances, I suspect that view would be upheld should it go to arbitration.

My wife and I are both named drivers on both vehicles, but if we were in a position where for some reason we could not afford to do that, then it would really have to be an emergency before I would risk relying on that clause to drive "her" car.

I don't see why. My policy doesn't say anything about that. To use your own words, "what excuse could they offer as to why it was not clearly stated in their policy?"

Afford? As has been already mentioned, it is often cheaper for both spouses to be named drivers on the policy than one spouse.

I know. The "for some reason" included the possibility that maybe one of us had ridiculous loadings due to past history say.

It would have to be very unusual circumstances before I would even consider not having both of us named.

My wife has her own car AFAIC. She selected it, baught it and arranges for it's servicing, etc, while it's still under guarantee. I have 2 cars insured. We are both named drivers on the others policies. I have only driven her car twice since she baught it. She has never driven either of my cars. There is no question of joint ownership as far as driving our cars is concerned. If your argument is true, it would mean you couldn't borrow your wifes car as you would be a part owner. BTW the reason we don't drive each others cars, is that mine are too big or too powerful for her. A 525i BMW and a Toyota Celica GT4 turbo, and her Toyota Corrolla is a bit of a shopping trolley AFAIC.:-) Mike.

Mike G ( snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

That's why you're a named driver on her policy - so you can.

In your minds, I'm sure there isn't.

The insurance companies would take some convincing of that.

Yes. That is precisely what I am saying.

Most couples that have two (or more) cars will regard one as "his" and one as "hers", and will very rarely drive each others cars.

But generally speaking, any major purchase made during a marriage is considered to be jointly owned.

I would be willing to bet that if a claim arose, the insurance company would at least try to claim that the vehicle was not one that is not owned by you. I'd be less sure that claim would be upheld if it came down to it, but I certainly would not fancy relying on it not being.

Obviously it doesn't apply to married couples who are named drivers. Maybe I should have added 'unless you're a named driver', but I thaught that was fairly obvious. Mike.

I am sure the law would see it the same way. The law accepts that within a marriage both can have personal property. It would be foolish for an insurance co to try to prove otherwise, in an attempt to avoid paying out on a claim

Do you know of any cases that support that view, because I've certainly never heard of any. In fact this is the first time I've even heard it suggested.

These days can a car be regarded as a major purchase? New just possibly, but most members of the public buy s/h. New kitchens and home improvements frequently cost more than the average cost of a s/h car. Mike.

I'm not. But I'm equally not sure the other way.

I would be very surprised indeed if any insurance company just paid out without question where the car was supposedly owned by the spouse, but the driver was not named on their policy.

I know the law accepts that it is possible for both partners to have individual property, but for things bought during the course of the marriage, the *default* is that they are considered jointly owned, unless it can clearly be shown otherwise.

No, I don't know of any cases.

That is why I have said all along that I'm not sure the law would support them in denying the claim. I do think there is a significant chance it would.

I think that to show it was not jointly owned, you would have to show that the couple generally keep most of their money separate, and it was clearly and unequivocally paid for from the money of one, then registered and insured by that one.

Yes, I think a car is still a major purchase. A new kitchen may cost more (although I've never paid more for a kitchen than any of our last three cars - which have not been particularly expensive).

But a new kitchen is also a major purchase. As is any other similar level of home improvement.