Driving other vehicles Insurance Cover " Immediate Family"??

[OutInTheShed]

So, I'm looking for motorcycle insurance.

I just got a 'good' quote, but buried on page 17 of the policy book us an awkward little detail that cover for riding other bikes excludes bikes belonging to members of my own household or "immediate family".


Am I alone in being unaware that this kind of restriction existed?
It doesn't seem very easy to check this cover detail on comparison sites.

I'm annoyed about this, because they've wasted loads of my time selling something which wouldn't have covered me.
I could easily have just paid up, checked the certificate and schedule and had a go on my Brother's bike.

Does this happen with cars too?

Small print excluding borrowing from anyone who's likely to lend you a vehicle?

[BertBert]

There are restrictions often for cars, but members of households and immediate family is stupid and woolly wording.

[N111BJG]

BertBert said:

There are restrictions often for cars, but members of households and immediate family is stupid and woolly wording.

How often do you hear or see the word woolly, I wrote it only seconds ago on another thread.

I just felt compelled to say.

[Yellow Lizud]

This is a fairly common restriction on 'Driving other Cars' insurance. Don't know about m'bikes

[98elise]

DOC cover and restrictions can vary a lot these days so if it's something you want/need then read up on it before you buy insurance.

It's not mandatory so can vary wildly.

[OutInTheShed]

It gets muddier.
The only UK legal definition I can find:
An immediate family member is defined in regulation 2(1) as "a parent, son or daughter". A close relative is defined as "a parent, parent-in-law, son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, step-parent, step-son, step-son-in-law, step-daughter, step-daughter-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, sister or sister-in-law."

It looks like in US law, those 'close relatives' would be 'immediate family'
As would some cousins.

So the salesperson has misadvised me?

[Sheepshanks]

OutInTheShed said:

Small print excluding borrowing from anyone who's likely to lend you a vehicle?

While it's legal if your policy covers you, you're not really supposed to use DOC for that.

A few years ago the Government told insurance companies to take DOC off policies as it's such a can of worms. Most did, but then some put it back again as policyholders were getting caught out not realising it had changed. But those that did put it back generally tightened up who it covered - it's usually only offered to over 25's for example.

DOC was originally on policies for incidental / emergency use - ie, you need to move a car blocking you in at a house party as the owner is drunk, or you're out with someone and they're taken ill.

[Dingu]

OutInTheShed said:

It gets muddier.
The only UK legal definition I can find:
An immediate family member is defined in regulation 2(1) as "a parent, son or daughter". A close relative is defined as "a parent, parent-in-law, son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, step-parent, step-son, step-son-in-law, step-daughter, step-daughter-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, sister or sister-in-law."

It looks like in US law, those 'close relatives' would be 'immediate family'
As would some cousins.

So the salesperson has misadvised me?

We can’t help as we don’t have access to the insurance booklet you are looking at.

[sospan]

OutInTheShed said:

It gets muddier.
The only UK legal definition I can find:
An immediate family member is defined in regulation 2(1) as "a parent, son or daughter". A close relative is defined as "a parent, parent-in-law, son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, step-parent, step-son, step-son-in-law, step-daughter, step-daughter-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, sister or sister-in-law."

It looks like in US law, those 'close relatives' would be 'immediate family'
As would some cousins.

So the salesperson has misadvised me?

Did you ask the advisor about that specific range of cover?
If so, what did they say?
If you intended to drive other vehicles then that is a question to ask.

[OutInTheShed]

Dingu said:

We can’t help as we don’t have access to the insurance booklet you are looking at.

I don't want to name and shame at this point, I can read the particular documents in front of me by myself.

The point was to ask other people's experiences and general understanding of limitations which should be expected, and maybe get suggestions of insurers who don't mess people about with hidden caveats.

[Bob T]

My 1 page Insurance Certificate states I can drive other cars with the owners approval, but it will be third party cover only. It also states "Please see Your Car Insurance Guide as restrictions will apply"

The guide identifies that driving a partners vehicle is not covered....and there is a separate definition of what counts as a "partner". If you expected to drive each others cars then why did you not put them down as named drivers and then you get comprehensive cover?

I wouldn't say the information is hidden and there are enough signposts to go and check. If someone offered me a drive of their vehicle I would go check first, and no way would I let anyone who was not a named driver behind the wheel of any of my cars without carefully checking very very carefully what the details were.....

[SS2.]

There's a similarly worded condition of ROB cover for Markerstudy. Coincidentally, it's on Page 17 of their policy booklet too..

The not at all well hidden wording is:

Riding Other Bikes said:

This extension applies to the policyholder only.

Cover does not apply in respect of any other rider/driver named under this policy.

Additionally, Riding Other Bikes cover will not apply if:

• you do not have the motorcycle owners permission to ride the motorcycle; or

• the motorcycle belongs to a member of your immediate family or anyone who is resident at the proposed address and is furnished or available to you for regular use; or

• this policy is issued in the name of a company or firm; or

• your motorcycle is sold, disposed of, declared a total loss or is stolen and not recovered; or

• the motorcycle you intend to ride is owned by or provided by an employer or business partner; or

• you ride the motorcycle outside of the geographical limits of this policy; or

• the motorcycle does not have valid cover in force under another insurance policy; or

• the motorcycle is not registered within the geographical limits of the policy; or

• the motorcycle you intend to ride has been seized or confiscated by or on behalf of, any government or public authority; or

• the vehicle you intend to ride is not a mechanically propelled two wheeled vehicle, with or without a sidecar attached, with an unladen weight of less than 410 kilograms.

• the motorcycle is being used in respect of your business or profession
.
• you are under 25 years of age

• you have held a full motorcycle license [sic] for less than 12 months

• your motorcycle has a cubic capacity of less than 350cc

[OutInTheShed]

Sheepshanks said:

OutInTheShed said:

Small print excluding borrowing from anyone who's likely to lend you a vehicle?

While it's legal if your policy covers you, you're not really supposed to use DOC for that.

A few years ago the Government told insurance companies to take DOC off policies as it's such a can of worms. Most did, but then some put it back again as policyholders were getting caught out not realising it had changed. But those that did put it back generally tightened up who it covered - it's usually only offered to over 25's for example.

DOC was originally on policies for incidental / emergency use - ie, you need to move a car blocking you in at a house party as the owner is drunk, or you're out with someone and they're taken ill.

Either it covers you or it does not.
People need to be clear about when they're covered.

AIUI a lot of what the gov't wanted rid off is being covered for uninsured vehicles, they want every vehicle to be named on a policy and on the database, that makes sense with the SORN and continuous insurance situation.

One policy I have in front of me mentions something vague about 'in an emergency'.


One policy has no less than 14 exception paragraphs to riding other bikes, after the over-all 'if it says so on your certificate'.
This one seems to only exclude family owned bikes which are available for regular use.
Personally, I'd have expected you'd need to be a named driver for anything which was there for your regular use.

[usn90]

I’m glad I’ve come upon this thread, will have a look at what mine states in the morning.

The policy I had years back states any car not belonging to me, it seems I’ve stupidly assumed this was the case for all insurers

Edit- just looked, admiral states any car not belonging to me or my partner, no harm done then

Edited by usn90 on Tuesday 11th October 23:40

[Ninja59]

My DOC refers to household as opposed to reference regarding family ties. It does cover the reason for in essence regularly using a family members vehicle that you should be named on.

It therefore allows me to still drive my parents vehicles as I no longer live with them, best bit really is it is fully comp as opposed to just being 3rd party.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

OutInTheShed said:

Small print excluding borrowing from anyone who's likely to lend you a vehicle?

It's not small print, it's normal sized print that most people are too lazy to read, and then shift responsibility for their own tardiness on to the insurers by bleating about small print.

You insurance policy, schedule and certificate are important documents. It's a contract you've entered into. They are all written in plain English. People should be reading them.

[98elise]

OutInTheShed said:

Dingu said:

We can’t help as we don’t have access to the insurance booklet you are looking at.

I don't want to name and shame at this point, I can read the particular documents in front of me by myself.

The point was to ask other people's experiences and general understanding of limitations which should be expected, and maybe get suggestions of insurers who don't mess people about with hidden caveats.

It's not hidden though, it's in the T&C's.

If its important that you have a certain level of DOC cover then you need to discuss that with the specific insurer. It's the same with things like hire cars or agreed/market value.

As its not legally required it will vary from insurer to insurer. Even then insurers don't have a single policy on DOC. My son and I are with Direct Line, and I have DOC as standard and he doesn't.

[catso]

My Motorbike insurance allows riding other bikes, with consent, already insured in it's own right etc. but, oddly only for other bikes over 20 years old. They say this is because my multi-bike policy is a 'classic' policy - all my bikes are over 20 years old so they only cover the same class, I've certainly never seen this caveat before.

Not really a problem as I'm unlikely to even use it but a bit strange I thought.

OTOH my car ins. covers driving other vehicles for both me and the Wife (named driver) again something I've not seen for the second driver before. As it happens this might be useful as although my Wife has her own car, her policy doesn't have driving other cars. Also has emergency cover where anyone (with a licence) can drive my car in a medical emergency.

Funny old world...

[andrebar]

My car insurance had a similar restriction, though I can’t remember the exact wording. Phoned them for clarification & was told it would cover the cars of my sister & my mum but not my wife or son.

[QBee]

I attacked this a different way.

Rather than risk it, I have my wife, daughter and son-in-law covered on all (but one**) of my cars. Saab estates and a Nissan X Trail, so not under 100 bhp.
Both the younger people are over 30 and have clean driving records, and have their own car ( only one car, and without a tow bar)..
No premium increases, and in one case it actually decreased the premium.

However, if any of us does have an accident or accumulates lots of points it affects all the policies.

The but one** is my TVR. The policy insists on drivers having previous experience of similar powerful cars.