Insured or Uninsured..that is the question?
Discussion
Jimmyarm said:
I'm not seeing anything that stops insurable interest being an essential concept ?
Sure, the compulsory part of the cover doesn't immediately cease (in certain circumstances) but for the purposes of another policys extension clause being activated when a 'valid' insurance policy is in force I wouldn't drive on the assumption it was in these circumstances.
I'm genuinely interested in the answer, if what the OP says is correct you are essentially saying that B was insured, whereas my underwriters head says they weren't as the sellers Policy ceased to be 'valid' as soon as they sold the car
Insurable interest has no bearing on this. The primary rules that apply are those contained in law in the Road Traffic Act, alongside the rules of each insurer. Sure, the compulsory part of the cover doesn't immediately cease (in certain circumstances) but for the purposes of another policys extension clause being activated when a 'valid' insurance policy is in force I wouldn't drive on the assumption it was in these circumstances.
I'm genuinely interested in the answer, if what the OP says is correct you are essentially saying that B was insured, whereas my underwriters head says they weren't as the sellers Policy ceased to be 'valid' as soon as they sold the car
Firstly, let's deal with DOC. Some fully comp polices have this, some don't. It is not an automatic inclusion. Some of those that have it require the other vehicle to be insured, some don't.
All DOC extensions automatically exclude any vehicle owned, leased or hired to the policyholder. They also usually require the driver to be over 25 and it cover third party losses only.
Insurable interest as a concept is as good as dead with car insurance, as many people insure leased, PCP, HP cars for the value, when their Insurable interest technically only extends to the monthly payments and the actual loan provider holds the true Insurable interest in the value. In any event, apart from some policies in marine insurance, Insurable interest usually only needs to be proven at inception of the policy and not for the full term of the policy.
The only point at which an insurer is completely free from liability and therefore no longer the insurer of a vehicle is when they are removed from MID. Until that point they remain as full, RTA or Article 75 insurer.
On that basis the seller Mr C clearly had no insurance in place on the car when he sold it, as it had already been removed from MiD, as it pinged the ANPR in the police car. That means that Mr A had no insurance via his DOC, as his DOC requires a valid policy to be in place on the car. In any event, there are questions over who actually owns the car and if Mr A actually does own it, the. It will be excluded automatically.
Jimmyarm said:
Yes you can, if you have an insurable interest in it.
If I 'rent' you my car for six months and a stipulation of that is that you are responsible for any damage you cause to it then you have an insurable interest.
The fact that you need cover in accordance with the Road Traffic act is a seperate matter.
See my post above. You really need to forget about Insurable Interest for motor. If I 'rent' you my car for six months and a stipulation of that is that you are responsible for any damage you cause to it then you have an insurable interest.
The fact that you need cover in accordance with the Road Traffic act is a seperate matter.
ging84 said:
This thread has cleared up nothing
We had already figured they had bought the car despite the story that they hadn't
But the simple question is, who bought the car.
If Mr A bought the car, chances are he was uninsured, as drive any car usually excludes other vehicles you own, or some thing around that theme.
If Mr B bought he car, chances are Mr A was insured to drive Mr B's car regardless if it meet the continuous insurance requirements, because as far as i'm aware no insurer actually requires the other car to have another insurance policy despite many people believing this is the case, and if any due it's an awful lot less common than people seem to think.
Your belief and those of others is wrong, I'm afraid. We had already figured they had bought the car despite the story that they hadn't
But the simple question is, who bought the car.
If Mr A bought the car, chances are he was uninsured, as drive any car usually excludes other vehicles you own, or some thing around that theme.
If Mr B bought he car, chances are Mr A was insured to drive Mr B's car regardless if it meet the continuous insurance requirements, because as far as i'm aware no insurer actually requires the other car to have another insurance policy despite many people believing this is the case, and if any due it's an awful lot less common than people seem to think.
Some fully comp policies include DOC, some don't
Of those with DOC some require a policy to be in force (e.g. esure), some don't (e.g. Direct Line).
snorky782 said:
Your belief and those of others is wrong, I'm afraid.
^^This^^snorky782 said:
Some fully comp policies include DOC, some don't
Both of mine do. snorky782 said:
Of those with DOC some require a policy to be in force (e.g. esure), some don't (e.g. Direct Line).
Again, both of mine do (neither are esure). It says so very clearly on each Certificate.As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
Red Devil said:
Again, both of mine do (neither are esure). It says so very clearly on each Certificate.
As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
Many of the Insurers who do stipulate the other vehicle needs it's own Insurance for the DOC to be operative, do not state this on the Certificate, they just state it in the Policy Wording.As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
snorky782 said:
Insurable interest has no bearing on this. The primary rules that apply are those contained in law in the Road Traffic Act, alongside the rules of each insurer.
Firstly, let's deal with DOC. Some fully comp polices have this, some don't. It is not an automatic inclusion. Some of those that have it require the other vehicle to be insured, some don't.
All DOC extensions automatically exclude any vehicle owned, leased or hired to the policyholder. They also usually require the driver to be over 25 and it cover third party losses only.
Insurable interest as a concept is as good as dead with car insurance, as many people insure leased, PCP, HP cars for the value, when their Insurable interest technically only extends to the monthly payments and the actual loan provider holds the true Insurable interest in the value. In any event, apart from some policies in marine insurance, Insurable interest usually only needs to be proven at inception of the policy and not for the full term of the policy.
The only point at which an insurer is completely free from liability and therefore no longer the insurer of a vehicle is when they are removed from MID. Until that point they remain as full, RTA or Article 75 insurer.
On that basis the seller Mr C clearly had no insurance in place on the car when he sold it, as it had already been removed from MiD, as it pinged the ANPR in the police car. That means that Mr A had no insurance via his DOC, as his DOC requires a valid policy to be in place on the car. In any event, there are questions over who actually owns the car and if Mr A actually does own it, the. It will be excluded automatically.
How does someone that has a car on PCP only have an insurable interest in the monthly payment ?Firstly, let's deal with DOC. Some fully comp polices have this, some don't. It is not an automatic inclusion. Some of those that have it require the other vehicle to be insured, some don't.
All DOC extensions automatically exclude any vehicle owned, leased or hired to the policyholder. They also usually require the driver to be over 25 and it cover third party losses only.
Insurable interest as a concept is as good as dead with car insurance, as many people insure leased, PCP, HP cars for the value, when their Insurable interest technically only extends to the monthly payments and the actual loan provider holds the true Insurable interest in the value. In any event, apart from some policies in marine insurance, Insurable interest usually only needs to be proven at inception of the policy and not for the full term of the policy.
The only point at which an insurer is completely free from liability and therefore no longer the insurer of a vehicle is when they are removed from MID. Until that point they remain as full, RTA or Article 75 insurer.
On that basis the seller Mr C clearly had no insurance in place on the car when he sold it, as it had already been removed from MiD, as it pinged the ANPR in the police car. That means that Mr A had no insurance via his DOC, as his DOC requires a valid policy to be in place on the car. In any event, there are questions over who actually owns the car and if Mr A actually does own it, the. It will be excluded automatically.
The loan agreement will quite clearly state they are responsible for the car whilst they are under the contract. The person therefore has an insurable interest in the whole value of the car, the fact that the value of it would go to the lease company is irrelevant.
We don't know what the OP and his mate were stopped for either.
You are still saying that if C had insurance then B would be covered ?
Jimmyarm said:
How does someone that has a car on PCP only have an insurable interest in the monthly payment ?
The loan agreement will quite clearly state they are responsible for the car whilst they are under the contract. The person therefore has an insurable interest in the whole value of the car, the fact that the value of it would go to the lease company is irrelevant.
We don't know what the OP and his mate were stopped for either.
You are still saying that if C had insurance then B would be covered ?
They don't have the insurable nterest as it's not their car. This part of the discussion is moot though. The rules as to whether or not a car is insured, or whether an insurer is classed as on cover are defined within the RTA. No other rules override this. The loan agreement will quite clearly state they are responsible for the car whilst they are under the contract. The person therefore has an insurable interest in the whole value of the car, the fact that the value of it would go to the lease company is irrelevant.
We don't know what the OP and his mate were stopped for either.
You are still saying that if C had insurance then B would be covered ?
I'm saying that if C had insurance in place and B was genuinely the buyer and new owner and A's policy had DOC that allowed him to drive cars with insurance in place then yes he would covered.
There's a lot of ifs in there though.
Edited by snorky782 on Friday 1st April 08:56
Whether or not you have a DOC extension is rarely anything to do with the level of your own cover. Some policies give it, some don't. If an insurance company give it, they will usually give it on third party policies and fully comp policies. They usually won't give it if you're under 25. And the cover is usually tpo regardless of whether you have a comp or a tp policy.
As said, they may demand that the other vehicle has its own insurance, or they may not. It almost always excludes cars owned leased or hired to the policyholder. Sometimes that exclusion extends to other vehicles in the household.
Check your own policy.
As said, they may demand that the other vehicle has its own insurance, or they may not. It almost always excludes cars owned leased or hired to the policyholder. Sometimes that exclusion extends to other vehicles in the household.
Check your own policy.
Agree with ginge that your friend should check his policy carefully if he genuinely wasn't the buyer.
It doesn't matter if the policeman believes the DOC requires the other car to be insured and it doesn't even matter if some call centre operative on the hotline confirms that.
What matters is what's written in the policy and a lot of them still don't require other cover to be in place. From a random sample of 3 policies (mine & 2 for my OH) none have this requirement. Neither the police nor the hotline can over-rule what's written in the policy, nor can they add conditions that aren't written in it.
It doesn't matter if the policeman believes the DOC requires the other car to be insured and it doesn't even matter if some call centre operative on the hotline confirms that.
What matters is what's written in the policy and a lot of them still don't require other cover to be in place. From a random sample of 3 policies (mine & 2 for my OH) none have this requirement. Neither the police nor the hotline can over-rule what's written in the policy, nor can they add conditions that aren't written in it.
Variomatic said:
Agree with ginge that your friend should check his policy carefully if he genuinely wasn't the buyer.
It doesn't matter if the policeman believes the DOC requires the other car to be insured and it doesn't even matter if some call centre operative on the hotline confirms that.
What matters is what's written in the policy and a lot of them still don't require other cover to be in place. From a random sample of 3 policies (mine & 2 for my OH) none have this requirement. Neither the police nor the hotline can over-rule what's written in the policy, nor can they add conditions that aren't written in it.
Amen.It doesn't matter if the policeman believes the DOC requires the other car to be insured and it doesn't even matter if some call centre operative on the hotline confirms that.
What matters is what's written in the policy and a lot of them still don't require other cover to be in place. From a random sample of 3 policies (mine & 2 for my OH) none have this requirement. Neither the police nor the hotline can over-rule what's written in the policy, nor can they add conditions that aren't written in it.
dacouch said:
Red Devil said:
Again, both of mine do (neither are esure). It says so very clearly on each Certificate.
As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
Many of the Insurers who do stipulate the other vehicle needs it's own Insurance for the DOC to be operative, do not state this on the Certificate, they just state it in the Policy Wording.As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
y well should do. 
It can be of paramount importance if a call centre drone provides incorrect information. See http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
The Certificate is the document that most people refer to day-to-day. Furthermore it is given first billing in Section 165(2)(a) RTA 1988.
Variomatic said:
It doesn't matter if the policeman believes the DOC requires the other car to be insured and it doesn't even matter if some call centre operative on the hotline confirms that.
What matters is what's written in the policy and a lot of them still don't require other cover to be in place. From a random sample of 3 policies (mine & 2 for my OH) none have this requirement. Neither the police nor the hotline can over-rule what's written in the policy, nor can they add conditions that aren't written in it.
That's as maybe, but it's scant comfort if a BIB is intent on seizing the car you are driving (see above).What matters is what's written in the policy and a lot of them still don't require other cover to be in place. From a random sample of 3 policies (mine & 2 for my OH) none have this requirement. Neither the police nor the hotline can over-rule what's written in the policy, nor can they add conditions that aren't written in it.
Red Devil said:
That's as maybe, but it's scant comfort if a BIB is intent on seizing the car you are driving (see above).
Agreed, but it's still worth knowing for that moment when your not guilty plea succeeds and you get to claim all the assorted costs etc that yoou suffered from the unlawful seizure 
Red Devil said:
dacouch said:
Red Devil said:
Again, both of mine do (neither are esure). It says so very clearly on each Certificate.
As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
Many of the Insurers who do stipulate the other vehicle needs it's own Insurance for the DOC to be operative, do not state this on the Certificate, they just state it in the Policy Wording.As will be the case with every insurer which makes it a requirement.
y well should do. 
Writing this on the smartphone so i apologise not being able to reply to specific questions.. just an update for anyone wondering.
My friend spoke to both party insurers.. the seller's and his own and both confirm the car was insured, although the seller's insurance was not happy he had continued to allow the policy to be live after so long. Yet nobody seems to be willing to put this in writing as evidence saying the motor certificates should be enough. Also my friend's insurance company claim there is no record of the Police ever contacting them in regards to checking whether he had cover at the time or not... surely the BiB wouldn't stitch him up for no reason?
My friend spoke to both party insurers.. the seller's and his own and both confirm the car was insured, although the seller's insurance was not happy he had continued to allow the policy to be live after so long. Yet nobody seems to be willing to put this in writing as evidence saying the motor certificates should be enough. Also my friend's insurance company claim there is no record of the Police ever contacting them in regards to checking whether he had cover at the time or not... surely the BiB wouldn't stitch him up for no reason?
WolfAir said:
Writing this on the smartphone so i apologise not being able to reply to specific questions.. just an update for anyone wondering.
My friend spoke to both party insurers.. the seller's and his own and both confirm the car was insured, although the seller's insurance was not happy he had continued to allow the policy to be live after so long. Yet nobody seems to be willing to put this in writing as evidence saying the motor certificates should be enough. Also my friend's insurance company claim there is no record of the Police ever contacting them in regards to checking whether he had cover at the time or not... surely the BiB wouldn't stitch him up for no reason?
I thought you said the incident happened immediately after the purchase, or even during it? So why is the sellers insurance annoyed the policy was live after so long? Perhaps your account of the events isn't quite accurate.My friend spoke to both party insurers.. the seller's and his own and both confirm the car was insured, although the seller's insurance was not happy he had continued to allow the policy to be live after so long. Yet nobody seems to be willing to put this in writing as evidence saying the motor certificates should be enough. Also my friend's insurance company claim there is no record of the Police ever contacting them in regards to checking whether he had cover at the time or not... surely the BiB wouldn't stitch him up for no reason?
Are the police still taking action?
If so, I'd strongly recommend advising your "friend" to get legal advice as I don't think yours is going to be very helpful.
WolfAir said:
Writing this on the smartphone so i apologise not being able to reply to specific questions.. just an update for anyone wondering.
My friend spoke to both party insurers.. the seller's and his own and both confirm the car was insured, although the seller's insurance was not happy he had continued to allow the policy to be live after so long. Yet nobody seems to be willing to put this in writing as evidence saying the motor certificates should be enough. Also my friend's insurance company claim there is no record of the Police ever contacting them in regards to checking whether he had cover at the time or not... surely the BiB wouldn't stitch him up for no reason?
Are your Insurers willing to confirm they would have covered you at the time and if so will they confirm it in writing?My friend spoke to both party insurers.. the seller's and his own and both confirm the car was insured, although the seller's insurance was not happy he had continued to allow the policy to be live after so long. Yet nobody seems to be willing to put this in writing as evidence saying the motor certificates should be enough. Also my friend's insurance company claim there is no record of the Police ever contacting them in regards to checking whether he had cover at the time or not... surely the BiB wouldn't stitch him up for no reason?
Sounds to me like the car had been bought (money had exchanged hands) by "friend" and "cousin" as a shared buy? Is that right?
If so the owner(s) has/have to ensure cover is in place before driving it that being a policy in their name. A driving other cars doesn't cut it, this is to drive other peoples cars in an emergency.
If the seller had "any driver" cover on his policy (unlikely) and a deal hadn't been struck at the time (unlikely as money had changed hands and the seller wasn't in the car at the time it was stopped) then maybe it could be said it was insured.
A one day insurance for a tenner would perhaps have helped here.
I would say uninsured.
If so the owner(s) has/have to ensure cover is in place before driving it that being a policy in their name. A driving other cars doesn't cut it, this is to drive other peoples cars in an emergency.
If the seller had "any driver" cover on his policy (unlikely) and a deal hadn't been struck at the time (unlikely as money had changed hands and the seller wasn't in the car at the time it was stopped) then maybe it could be said it was insured.
A one day insurance for a tenner would perhaps have helped here.
I would say uninsured.
anniesdad said:
...A driving other cars doesn't cut it, this is to drive other peoples cars in an emergency....
Umm, no it's not. DOC cover is not just for emergencies. There are, however, specific clauses in certain policies which refer to moving the car 'in an emergency', but this is usually within the 1st parties' insurance cover.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff