Insuarnce conundrum
Discussion
My car is insured fully comprehensive with me as the only driver.
My mother is insured fully comp on her car, which also gives her third party cover on mine.
If she crashes into someone, whilst driving my car, her insurance company will pay to the damage to the third party.
Can I claim on my insurance for the damage to my car?
My mother is insured fully comp on her car, which also gives her third party cover on mine.
If she crashes into someone, whilst driving my car, her insurance company will pay to the damage to the third party.
Can I claim on my insurance for the damage to my car?
edc said:The difference being, where the Mum was driving it assumes permission was given. In which case no cover for damage to car... however, if your Mum is Bonnie Parker and has nicked your car and then crashes it, your insurance will cover you, because you gave no permission.... and I understand visiting hours are pretty reasonable!
Nope because you where not driving.
MC
No 1 said:You'd have to prove she took it without permission, and therefore report her for theft, but yes it's fact. If there's any doubt that she took it accidentally (believing she was covered, perhaps you changed conditions of you policy and she was once covered) then it's a grey area and doubt whether insurance will cover for damage to your car. Onus is on the driver to make sure they have insurance, however, some onus can extend to owner if they knowingly let someone drive without insurance... and everyone gets done.
MC
Cheers for the info, is this opinion or stated fact? I would have hoped that since my car has "fully comprehensive" insurance, it owuld be covered, but I suspect that you are correct.
Oh well, I guess no-one but me gets to enjoy the Tiv then!
MC
outlaw said:
I've always wondered if (in this example) you could sue your mum as a third party, hence her insurance would cover?
yes
Hmmmm...best dealt with on a scenario basis:
Scenario 1: Your mum is covered third party only (TPO) to drive any motor vehicle not belonging/hired to her with the owner's permission; you give such permission and she bends it.
In this case any damage to your car would NOT be covered by either policy. You would have to sue your mum (possibly with the help of any ULR insurance you have) for the damage. Alternatively ask her nicely and she might pay anyway
Scenario 2: Your mum is covered TPO on any car etc. but you do NOT give permission, and she bends it.
In this case to be covered for the damage under your own policy you would have to prove theft (theft is defined under s1 Theft Act 1950 as 'the removal of property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of possession') If she claimed she 'just borrowed' it and intended to return it, you would be hard up to get a theft rap to stick; thus you wouldn't be covered. You MIGHT be covered under the Accidental Damage (AD) section of the policy depending on the wording.
The wordings of most policies is fairly clear on this point - the indemnity extends to only those people named on the Certificate (or those driving with the owner's permission in the case of 'any driver' policies). If you drive someone else's car TPO on your own policy you will probably end up liable for any AD caused.
loaf said:
onedsla said:
I've always wondered if (in this example) you could sue your mum as a third party, hence her insurance would cover?
yes
Hmmmm...best dealt with on a scenario basis:
Scenario 1: Your mum is covered third party only (TPO) to drive any motor vehicle not belonging/hired to her with the owner's permission; you give such permission and she bends it.
In this case any damage to your car would NOT be covered by either policy. You would have to sue your mum (possibly with the help of any ULR insurance you have) for the damage. Alternatively ask her nicely and she might pay anyway
Scenario 2: Your mum is covered TPO on any car etc. but you do NOT give permission, and she bends it.
In this case to be covered for the damage under your own policy you would have to prove theft (theft is defined under s1 Theft Act 1950 as 'the removal of property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of possession') If she claimed she 'just borrowed' it and intended to return it, you would be hard up to get a theft rap to stick; thus you wouldn't be covered. You MIGHT be covered under the Accidental Damage (AD) section of the policy depending on the wording.
The wordings of most policies is fairly clear on this point - the indemnity extends to only those people named on the Certificate (or those driving with the owner's permission in the case of 'any driver' policies). If you drive someone else's car TPO on your own policy you will probably end up liable for any AD caused.
in 2 you wouldent have to get her done for theft.
TWOC would do just as well.
tonyrec said:And this is the stupidity of motor insurance in this country. Is it the car or the driver who is insured? If it is the driver then why do you need to accumulate a NCB on each car? Why do you need to have an insurance policy for each car? If it is the car that is insured, why is it not insured if it is bent when ut has been lent to someone under these circumstances? It's neither one nor the other really.
You definately cant claim because as has already been pointed out....you werent the driver.
If you look at this from another angle based on insurance companies are mostly thieves with GCSE's then you can figure that the reason why we have NCD on each car is because that is the best thing for the insurance company. Insurance is a bit like pensions, you set up a business to provide a service and then renage on the provision when the customer is so deep into the term they have no choice but to stick with it.
It's actually all down to the wording. Isurance since it was invented in the 1700's is based on a simple policy of indemnty which *would* cover you in both cases above. However, companies can limit indemnity as long as it is made clear, and doesn't break any of the fundamentals of insurance.
Limiting cover in the way described doesn't change the principle, just the terms of application, and hence is totally legal.
However, as an example of a "marketing con" GAP insurance on the other hand is a total scam as you cannot change the principle of indemnity when a loss occurs, and hence it's the insurance companies problem to fund any gap between the car "value" and your payments left, regardless if you have GAP insurance or not
If you read GAP insurance documents you will find you pay for the "convience" of an immediate payout, rather than the fact you actually need it!
J
Limiting cover in the way described doesn't change the principle, just the terms of application, and hence is totally legal.
However, as an example of a "marketing con" GAP insurance on the other hand is a total scam as you cannot change the principle of indemnity when a loss occurs, and hence it's the insurance companies problem to fund any gap between the car "value" and your payments left, regardless if you have GAP insurance or not
If you read GAP insurance documents you will find you pay for the "convience" of an immediate payout, rather than the fact you actually need it! J
JonRB said:
And this is the stupidity of motor insurance in this country.
Insurance isn't stupid; it's only the people who pay out £500 for a piece of paper and then don't read it that are stupid
JonRB said:
Is it the car or the driver who is insured?
s143 Road Traffic Act 1988 states 'A person must not use a motor vehicle on a public road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance ...as complies with the requirements of this Act'
Thus both the driver/user (not always the same thing but that's another thread) AND the vehicle require insurance. Usually such insurance is provided by one policy i.e. if it's your car, you're driving, and you are named on the policy relating to that car, all is well; the issue only arises when people who are not on the policy relating to the car drive it.
JonRB said:
If it is the driver then why do you need to accumulate a NCB on each car?
You don't - you collect NCB on each policy regardless of which car is insured on it (classic/fleet/specialist policies excluded)
JonRB said:
Why do you need to have an insurance policy for each car?
You don't; you only need to have in force a policy of insurance relating to the use of the car by you. This may or may not be a separate policy for each vehicle, depending on the circumstances - fleet policies for example
JonRB said:
If it is the car that is insured, why is it not insured if it is bent when ut has been lent to someone under these circumstances? It's neither one nor the other really.
It wouldn't be insured in these circumstances as it has been used outside the terms of the policy i.e. driven by someone who wasn't named on the policy relating to the car, or, in the case of driving on someone else's car TPO on one's own policy, the car wasn't insured for accidental damage as Third Party Only cover is exactly that - cover for third party risks only, not accidental damage to the car.
loaf said:
And this is the stupidity of motor insurance in this country.
Ok, right. I guess I should have instead worded it "this is the apparant incongruity of insurance in this country". I'm sorry if you took my use of the word "stupid" as some sort of personal attack on you.
I am aware of how motor insurance works in this country - and I maintain that it is neither fish nor fowl. It has elements of insurance for the driver and the motor vehicle, but does not seem to resolve to solely one or the other.
JonRB said:
JonRB said:
And this is the stupidity of motor insurance in this country.
Insurance isn't stupid; it's only the people who pay out £500 for a piece of paper and then don't read it that are stupid
Ok, right. I guess I should have instead worded it "this is the apparant incongruity of insurance in this country". I'm sorry if you took my use of the word "stupid" as some sort of personal attack on you.
I am aware of how motor insurance works in this country - and I maintain that it is neither fish nor fowl. It has elements of insurance for the driver and the motor vehicle, but does not seem to resolve to solely one or the other.
Not taken personally - just getting a bit fed up with people blindly blaming insurance companies for what is in most cases their own ignorance or laziness
Although in this case I accept that (I think?) you weren't popping at insurance companies per se, just insurance in general :illputtheminigunbackinitscasesheepishly: You hit the nail on the head - insurance cannot resolve solely to driver or the vehicle the way the law is written as the law expressly states compulsory insurance must relate to both...go figure.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff