Drive other cars extension question...

Drive other cars extension question...

Author
Discussion

BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
speedking31 said:
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.
What is it that's not explicitly stated here?

If the policy terms say "drive any old car", then the ins co cannot enforce unwritten conditions such as "emergencies only" or "provided it has its own policy". The Highway one seems to state the latter case (depending what "this Section" actually covers).

And to the question of interpretation, that depends on the clause. Eg "needs its own insurance policy" doesn't admit of much wrangling on what that means. "Emergencies only" does open itself up to huge amounts of interpretation. What on earth does that include oir not include?

Bert

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
The requirement for the other car to have its own insurance is not explicitly stated in the OP's insurance documentation.

Highway sees the need to state the exclusion explicitly. Therefore I deduce that if that requirement is not explicitly stated then there is no requirement. As stated in several of the posts above.

Fartomatic5000

558 posts

154 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
I had to phone mine three times in order to get the correct answer. The first two times they stated that the car did not need to have its own policy. Only when I was discussing it with a friend did I start getting doubts again and phoned them for a third time. This was about 10 years ago and the insurer wore a Royal Navy hat.

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
If the policy docs don't say it needs it's own insurance then it doesn't. I've been to court over this & won so I know I'm correct.

Monkeylegend

26,226 posts

230 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
speedking31 said:
The requirement for the other car to have its own insurance is not explicitly stated in the OP's insurance documentation.

Highway sees the need to state the exclusion explicitly. Therefore I deduce that if that requirement is not explicitly stated then there is no requirement. As stated in several of the posts above.
Assumption, the mother of all fk ups wink

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
Hooli said:
If the policy docs don't say it needs it's own insurance then it doesn't. I've been to court over this & won so I know I'm correct.
Not sure how that ever got to court. You're obviously correct. Your insurance is a contract. What it says is the deal. No twit at a call centre can unilaterally amend an agreed written contract.

My DOC extension says nothing about the other car having to have its own insurance, so therefore it doesn't have to have its own insurance. I don't need anyone's confirmation of contradiction of that fact.

JB!

5,254 posts

179 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
I'm covered fully comp DOC provided I'm not the RK and don't live at the same address, upro 20K vehicle value, if I do live at the same address, its TPO.

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Hooli said:
If the policy docs don't say it needs it's own insurance then it doesn't. I've been to court over this & won so I know I'm correct.
Not sure how that ever got to court. You're obviously correct. Your insurance is a contract. What it says is the deal. No twit at a call centre can unilaterally amend an agreed written contract.

My DOC extension says nothing about the other car having to have its own insurance, so therefore it doesn't have to have its own insurance. I don't need anyone's confirmation of contradiction of that fact.
It was a few years ago before they could check online, along with I'd swapped the car to my then GF's name so my DOC cover worked. I had it on her drive while fixing it up & was going to a MOT when stopped.
It came back from the DVLA as still in my name & I couldn't produce proof I'd swapped it over so it went to court. By the time it got to court the new V5 had come back so it was all dropped.

I did however get told not to do it again, I'm still not sure about what part of legally driving a car on the road I shouldn't do again...

dacouch

1,172 posts

128 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
ging84 said:
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.
Here's a good example of the kind of wrong answer's an Insurer will give and it's highly topical as well.

This is a transcript of a live chat I had with Direct Line to settle a similar argument on another forum where I pointed out DL do not need the other car insured as their wording does not stipulate it. The other poster used Directline's Live chat and they told him he was right eg the other car need's it's own Insurance.

Here's a transcript of my live chat conversation with a different member of DL staff shortly after his...

"

Requested transcript of your recent chat interaction with Direct Line

You: Hello Helen

You: I'm looking to transfer my car insurance to you and have a question about the driving other cars cover

You: can you help me with that?

Helen: Thanks for getting in touch.

Helen: Of course...

You: great

Helen: May I ask a few questions to clarify this?

You: If I drive another car under the driving other cars cover does the other car need to hold it's own cover?

Helen: Yes it would.

Helen: Will you be the policyholder for this policy?

You: yes I would be a policy holder

You: Are you saying it needs it's own insurance?

You: I ask as I have read the relevant part of your policy on page 12 section 1b and it does not state the other car needs it's own insurance. If it needed it's own Insurance surely you should mention it there?

Helen: All cars on the road need to be insured by law now unless they are SORN off the road with the DVLA.

Helen: It is required by law.

Helen: May I ask your occupation so I can clarify id you have the Driving Other Cars cover?

Helen: if*

You: But SORN and continuous Insurance laws apply to the registered keeper of the vehicle. If I was borrowing a friends vehicle I would not be the registered keeper so SORN and continous insurance would not apply to me.

You: I actually work for the ******** so I understand how policy wordings work. I'm pretty sure I would qualify for the driving other cars as I work in an office.

Helen: No, it would apply to the owner not you. But you cannot drive it unless it is legally on the road.

Helen: In that case, a comprehensive policy with Direct Line would cover you to drive other cars - this would apply to you as the policyholder only, it gives third party only cover, you must have the owner's permission and it can't be used on a car that's owned or leased by yourself.

Helen: It must be legally on the road for this to apply.

You: Sorry but SORN and continuous insurance would not prevent a car legally being on the road.

You: The road traffic act and me having a certificate of insurance saying I have driving other cars would mean I'm covered.

You: sorry to be pedantic but it does not state in your policy that the car needs it's own insurance. It also does not state in your policy that the car needs to legally be on the road

Helen: In order for you to drive another car it must be insured by the owner.

Helen: The law recently changed to say that any car needed to be insured unless it is SORN off the road.

Helen: If you wish to drive someone eles's car on the Driving Other CArs cover, the car must be insured by the owner for it to be on the road.

Helen: else's*

You: Sorry to be a pain but you're wrong, if your policy does not state it needs it's own cover then you cannot retrospectively say it needs it's own cover. Apart from falling foul of the unfair contract law the FOS would rule against you.

You: As I've mentioned before if the car should be sorn or hold it's own insurance to comply with the continuous insurance laws then the registered keeper would be the one committing the offence. I as a driver would not be the one committing an offence

Helen: I will speak to the underwriters for you. One moment please.

You: thank you

Helen: You're welcome...(Speaks to underwriters)

Helen: The Driving Other Cars extension covers the Policyholder to drive any car not owned by themselves or hired to them under a hire purchase or annual leasing agreement. Therefore, the Policyholder is covered whilst driving another car for which no insurance had been purchased.

Helen: However, under the 1988 Road Traffic Act, it is illegal for a motor vehicle to be parked on a public highway without insurance

You: so are you saying the other car does not need it's own insurance under the driving other cars extension?

Helen: This is correct but you would not be able to park on a public highway as above,it would only be covered whilst you are driving.

Helen: W

You: Thank you, I appreciate your help and you taking the time to investigate.

Helen: You're very welcome.

You: I'm acting personally and in no way is this connected to my job. I was just surprised by a call I made to your CS who told me the other car needs it's own insurance.

Helen: That's fine.

You: Incidently it can be argued that if you parked your car up under DOC while you popped into a shop for instance that it's part of an overall journey so would be covered. There is case law to this effect but would take a lot or arguing and would normally need appealing to a higher court if it went through a magistrates

You: thanks. have a nice day

Helen: You too!

Helen: This is why we only recommend it as emergency use.

Helen: Please feel free to chat with us again should you have additional questions.

Helen: Is there anything else I can help you with today?

Helen: Thank you for visiting DirectLine.com today.




bradjsmith88

117 posts

127 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
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.
First - ring your insurer - its their contract with you - even if you can wiggle because of the wording isn't it better to check first and make sure there is not going to be a problem later?

Second - if you disagree with them then have it out with them BEFORE you drive the car - again save yourself any hassle. Its your responsibility to check you are insured - and posting on Pistonheads is hardly a defence if you aren't insured.

Third - The wording you've supplied appears to be only from the insurance certificate. All of the other documents form part of the contract, so read all of them for all of the inclusions and exclusions.

Fourth - Just because it doesn't say it isn't covered, doesnt say it is. When reading a policy you should read what is covered followed by what isnt. An inclusion as just as important as an exclusion!

Fifth - Policies do include interpretation - its a civil contract - so if it says you can drive a private motor car there is a legal definition!!

Monkeylegend

26,226 posts

230 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
bradjsmith88 said:
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.
First - ring your insurer - its their contract with you - even if you can wiggle because of the wording isn't it better to check first and make sure there is not going to be a problem later?

Second - if you disagree with them then have it out with them BEFORE you drive the car - again save yourself any hassle. Its your responsibility to check you are insured - and posting on Pistonheads is hardly a defence if you aren't insured.

Third - The wording you've supplied appears to be only from the insurance certificate. All of the other documents form part of the contract, so read all of them for all of the inclusions and exclusions.

Fourth - Just because it doesn't say it isn't covered, doesnt say it is. When reading a policy you should read what is covered followed by what isnt. An inclusion as just as important as an exclusion!

Fifth - Policies do include interpretation - its a civil contract - so if it says you can drive a private motor car there is a legal definition!!
Far to sensible for the PH insurance guru's, and not what they want to hear, but I fully agree with you.

dacouch

1,172 posts

128 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
ging84 said:
They are only as good as the 20p above minimum wage call centre workers they hire
Twenty odd years ago I worked for an Insurer in a call centre, I was taken on as a "Senior" in customer service dealing with everything apart from claims and new quotes. The CS reps would answer calls (I would when it was busy), the reps would ask the senior if they were not sure about something or pass a difficult call over. If a senior could not answer they would refer to a team leader.

Out of 100 staff in the customer service dept there were only five of us who had previous insurance experience and actually understood insurance. Even the team leaders had very little understanding about insurance and were only there to run the teams efficiently and ensure as many calls were answered and dealt with below a certain average of seconds per call.

The other senior reps had been recruited as they had experience supervising in other businesses such as shops and were given two weeks induction and training and let lose to answer questions.

On late shifts a colleague and I would entertain ourselves whilst it was quiet by ringing in and using an existing clients details to ask questions of the staff we knew would be referred through to the other senior reps or team leaders.

For instance I once rang in as Mr X quoting a specific policy number which was for an insured only driver and advised the rep I had recently been diagnosed as 100% blind and would like a Braille Policy wording as I wanted to read the policy.

Amused us watching them ring through to stationary dept & then the underwriting dept to ask for a braille policy wording.

We used to have to get manual covernotes (The old style carbon copy covernotes) countersigned by the CS manager once we had completed them. I was told to reissue a covernote as I had entered the incorrect use. I had entered the correct use eg SDP & commuting as per the cover. They told me it was wrong & that class one business use was the correct definition of cover for SDP & commuting. Luckily I was seconded to the underwriting dept shortly after, I mentioned this to them and they checked the copies in the covernote books. They discovered that every single covernote that had been counter signed by the CS manager for the last two years had been issued with the wrong class of use. The implications for the insurer were very serious as they were legally bound by what was issued on all of those covernotes whilst they were in date.

Insurers CS staff always amuse me at how little a lot of them actually know about Insurance, many years ago they used to know their policy & insurance inside out. But when Insurers wanted to cut back staff and save money they made the experienced and better paid staff redundant and replaced them with staff on minimum wage or not much more who frequently have very little grasp.

Some Insurer's CS staff are better than others but many will just guess at the correct answer with the result often being similar advice to that often given out on PH by many of the members

Edited by dacouch on Wednesday 20th May 17:12

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
Monkeylegend said:
speedking31 said:
Therefore I deduce ...
Assumption, the mother of all fk ups wink
Deduction > assumption wink

dacouch

1,172 posts

128 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
Hooli said:
If the policy docs don't say it needs it's own insurance then it doesn't. I've been to court over this & won so I know I'm correct.
This is a fairly famous Insurance Case law which touches on this subject.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.h...

Hi

Original Poster:

1,362 posts

177 months

Wednesday 20th May 2015
quotequote all
Thanks for all the replies.

To whoever asked, yes it is an RAC policy.

I asked more out of interest then anything else, I have no plans to drive an uninsured car not owned by me. I already have DOC cover through another policy anyway.

I share the same view as several on here that ringing the insurance company is no guarantee of getting an accurate answer. I may give it a try and ring several times to see if I get varying answers!

The sections I quoted are from the certificate, so I will check the rest of the policy wording as see if it gives any more detail.

Thabks for that link in the post above to a case which touches on this subject, in that case the judges clearly found that the wording in my policy DOES cover me to drive another car regardless of whether it has its own policy in place or not.

caziques

2,567 posts

167 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
It's when questions like this come up that I am thankful to be living in New Zealand, possibly the only semi civilised country where you don't need insurance.

Frankly I don't bother anymore, and haven't for a number of years.

With various business vehicles and family ones there are something like a dozen floating around - I just grab the best vehicle for the journey.

But note, everyone in NZ is covered for personal injury under all circumstances - car insurance is ONLY for cars not people.

Hi

Original Poster:

1,362 posts

177 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
caziques said:
It's when questions like this come up that I am thankful to be living in New Zealand, possibly the only semi civilised country where you don't need insurance.

Frankly I don't bother anymore, and haven't for a number of years.

With various business vehicles and family ones there are something like a dozen floating around - I just grab the best vehicle for the journey.

But note, everyone in NZ is covered for personal injury under all circumstances - car insurance is ONLY for cars not people.
Interesting, what would happen if you hit a very expensive car if it was your fault? Would you have to fork out for repairs or is it upto the owner of the very expensive car to have it insured?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
caziques said:
It's when questions like this come up that I am thankful to be living in New Zealand, possibly the only semi civilised country where you don't need insurance.

Frankly I don't bother anymore, and haven't for a number of years.

With various business vehicles and family ones there are something like a dozen floating around - I just grab the best vehicle for the journey.

But note, everyone in NZ is covered for personal injury under all circumstances - car insurance is ONLY for cars not people.
1. Basic TP cover is provided as part of the road tax and petrol price
2. It covers everybody for injury, no matter how caused including non driving stuff. It's massively open tomabuse, but also has very strict definitions of what is an injury (which is good to some extent IMO)
3. It doesn't cover damage to your car - you're paying for this if you're at fault
4. It doesn't cover damage to the other car- you're paying for this if you're at fault
5. If it's not your fault, but the other driver has no top up insurance, then unless you can identify them then you're paying for it either out of your own pocket or via your own top up insurance (if you have any)

There seems to be a pretty big car insurance market out there.

Oh and I did some maths ages ago on here about the same thing being done in the UK and the cost was around 22p a litre, just for the most basic of cover and most people would buy the top up cover, just as they do now. The only legal requirement in the UK is TPO (actually it's even lower, but that isn't available to buy anymore) yet most people still buy TPF&T or Fully Comp, with no legal compulsion to do so.

One last thing, the NZ insurance set up posted one of the largest corporate losses in history a few years back, this is despite having a population that's 10% of the UK over a shedload more land.

Edited by LoonR1 on Thursday 21st May 08:11

BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
welcome back!

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
BertBert said:
welcome back!
Thanks, but just killing some time abroad. Won't be back for long.