Drive other cars extension question...

[Hi]

My policy states I have DOC extension, I have copied word for word the 2 relevant sections of the policy here. My question is, does the 'other car' have to have it's own insurance policy in place?

Paragraph 5
Mr OP may also drive with the owners permission a motor car that is
not owned by or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to, them, their business partner
or their employer, or is being kept or used in connection with their or their employer's
business.

Driving other cars:
If paragraph 5 above allows a driver to drive a car not belonging to them or hired by them, the cover for
that car will be limited to Section 1 of the policy - Liability to others. They will not be covered for any loss
or damage to the car they are driving.

[wjb]

Yeah, pretty sure the other car needs to be insured.

[dacouch]

Hi said:

My policy states I have DOC extension, I have copied word for word the 2 relevant sections of the policy here. My question is, does the 'other car' have to have it's own insurance policy in place?

Paragraph 5
Mr OP may also drive with the owners permission a motor car that is
not owned by or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to, them, their business partner
or their employer, or is being kept or used in connection with their or their employer's
business.

Driving other cars:
If paragraph 5 above allows a driver to drive a car not belonging to them or hired by them, the cover for
that car will be limited to Section 1 of the policy - Liability to others. They will not be covered for any loss
or damage to the car they are driving.

Is this a RAC / Zenith Policy?

Does it have any additional wording relating to DOC in the actual Policy Booklet (Generally under the "Liability to Other" section)

[Rick101]

Doesn't seem to stipulate it in that section but I would assume the other car needs to be insured.

With the continuous insurance now required on cars, it should be insured anyway, that or SORN.

[SS2.]

wjb said:

Yeah, pretty sure the other car needs to be insured.

If the policy holder's documentation doesn't stipulate it, then it's not a requirement.

[hunton69]

If the other vehicle is not insured then it has to of be sorn and therefor not allowed on the road. No point adding it in the small print

[Cat]

If the 2 paragraphs you have posted are all the relevant parts of your policy and certificate then there is no requirement for the vehicle to have its own insurance for you to be covered.

The CIE regulations, which some have mentioned, are not applicable as they make it an offence for the keeper of the vehicle not to have insurance if the vehicle is not SORN'd. This requirement is completely separate to the requirement under s143 RTA for a driver to be covered by a policy of insurance to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place.

Cat

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SS2. said:

wjb said:

Yeah, pretty sure the other car needs to be insured.

If the policy holder's documentation doesn't stipulate it, then it's not a requirement.

Absolutely right. If the other car isn't insured in its own right, in then probably won't be taxed either so shouldn't be driven, so the OP is leaving himself open to problems on that front, but his DOC insurance will still be valid.

[BertBert]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely right. If the other car isn't insured in its own right, in then probably won't be taxed either so shouldn't be driven, so the OP is leaving himself open to problems on that front, but his DOC insurance will still be valid.

It could be the other way around. Taxed but not insured so the OP is ok to drive but the RK is in trouble.
Bert

[ZiggyNiva]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely right. If the other car isn't insured in its own right, in then probably won't be taxed either so shouldn't be driven, so the OP is leaving himself open to problems on that front, but his DOC insurance will still be valid.

Unless its being taken for a prearranged MOT

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely right. If the other car isn't insured in its own right, in then probably won't be taxed either so shouldn't be driven, so the OP is leaving himself open to problems on that front, but his DOC insurance will still be valid.

It could be the other way around. Taxed but not insured so the OP is ok to drive but the RK is in trouble.
Bert

Very true.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ZiggyNiva said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely right. If the other car isn't insured in its own right, in then probably won't be taxed either so shouldn't be driven, so the OP is leaving himself open to problems on that front, but his DOC insurance will still be valid.

Unless its being taken for a prearranged MOT

Quite right.

[Monkeylegend]

Hi Hi, the only definitive answer you will get will be from your insurance company not a bunch of amateur insurance experts on the internet.

Give them a call

[SS2.]

Monkeylegend said:

Hi, the only definitive answer you will get will be from your insurance company not a bunch of amateur insurance experts on the internet.

There have been multiple instances where a poster on here has been given utterly guff information from an insurance call centre drone.

The documentation is all that matters - if it's not written down, then it doesn't apply.

[Monkeylegend]

SS2. said:

Monkeylegend said:

Hi, the only definitive answer you will get will be from your insurance company not a bunch of amateur insurance experts on the internet.

There have been multiple instances where a poster on here has been given utterly guff information from an insurance call centre drone.

The documentation is all that matters - if it's not written down, then it doesn't apply.

It's the interpretation that counts, and I would rather believe my insurance company than a know all on the internet

[ging84]

Monkeylegend said:

Hi Hi, the only definitive answer you will get will be from your insurance company not a bunch of amateur insurance experts on the internet.

Give them a call

No need to give them a call, they can say what they want, but the T&C are black and white, if there is nothing to say, i once called my insurer to see if they could add my father in law's car to my policy as a temporary vehicle while he was away, they weren't able to, i asked them if i was still covered to drive it 3rd party, they said no the drive any vehicle cover was for emergencies only, i asked them to tell me where that was specified in the policy, they couldn't because it was total bks.

[Monkeylegend]

You lot must be using some crap insurance companies then. A phone call to mine and they tell you what you need to know.

[SS2.]

Monkeylegend said:

It's the interpretation that counts, and I would rather believe my insurance company than a know all on the internet

Interpretation doesn't come into it - either it's written in black and white, or it isn't.

For this reason, I'd always place greater reliance on my policy documentation rather than verbal advice I may have received from my insurer.

That's not being a know-all, it's just plain old common sense.

[ging84]

Monkeylegend said:

You lot must be using some crap insurance companies then. A phone call to mine and they tell you what you need to know.

They are only as good as the 20p above minimum wage call centre workers they hire

[speedking31]

Highway Insurance states

Highway said:

Driving other cars – What is not covered : Use of a private motor car unless there is a current and valid policy of insurance in force for the vehicle being driven under this Section.

So I would assume that if not explicitly stated then not applicable.