3rd party cover on other cars
Discussion
Fully comp on my cover - insured 3rd party to drive anything else with owners permission, but have heard rumours that this entitlement will be dropped from most policies very soon. Is there any truth in this?
Not a huge problem as I'll just end up insuring the people who are likely to "need" to drive my car, and they'll do the same with their policy for me.
Will this lead to an increase in "all driver" policies, and will this increased demand reduce the costs for such a policy (obviously not...but I thought I'd ask!)
Not a huge problem as I'll just end up insuring the people who are likely to "need" to drive my car, and they'll do the same with their policy for me.
Will this lead to an increase in "all driver" policies, and will this increased demand reduce the costs for such a policy (obviously not...but I thought I'd ask!)
I've just renewed the (fully comp) policy on my motorbike, and they wouldn't put third party entitlement on, and said the same about it being dropped from most policies soon. My car policy also doesn't have it any longer. I renewed that policy last August and up to that point i'd always had the cover, despite only being TPFT.
Started apparently some time ago - like other things such as (automatic)courtesy car ---something else to stick an extra fee on for.Like Norwich Union's pay by mile policies for young drivers.
Simple solution is for motorist to vote with feet and find another company ,but how many will??
Simple solution is for motorist to vote with feet and find another company ,but how many will??
[quote=who me ?]Started apparently some time ago - like other things such as (automatic)courtesy car ---something else to stick an extra fee on for.Like Norwich Union's pay by mile policies for young drivers.
Simple solution is for motorist to vote with feet and find another company ,but how many will??[/quote]
Its an interesting point about the courtesy car. I have noticed that they sometimes call it 'guaranteed replacement vehicle'.
What they wont tell you is that whether you have paid for this or not, if someone smashes you car up and you cant drive it, then you can just walk into your local hire facility, hire the same car and add this to the claim.
Indeed, many of the dealership repairers will offer a courtesy car as standard anyway - so a really think it is a way of getting an extra £20 off each policy.
On the other hand, the legal assistance coverage i would say is a lot better value for money since it even allows to to act against your own insurance company at their cost!
Simple solution is for motorist to vote with feet and find another company ,but how many will??[/quote]
Its an interesting point about the courtesy car. I have noticed that they sometimes call it 'guaranteed replacement vehicle'.
What they wont tell you is that whether you have paid for this or not, if someone smashes you car up and you cant drive it, then you can just walk into your local hire facility, hire the same car and add this to the claim.
Indeed, many of the dealership repairers will offer a courtesy car as standard anyway - so a really think it is a way of getting an extra £20 off each policy.
On the other hand, the legal assistance coverage i would say is a lot better value for money since it even allows to to act against your own insurance company at their cost!
justinp1 said:
[quote=who me ?]Started apparently some time ago - like other things such as (automatic)courtesy car ---something else to stick an extra fee on for.Like Norwich Union's pay by mile policies for young drivers.
Simple solution is for motorist to vote with feet and find another company ,but how many will??
Simple solution is for motorist to vote with feet and find another company ,but how many will??
Its an interesting point about the courtesy car. I have noticed that they sometimes call it 'guaranteed replacement vehicle'.
What they wont tell you is that whether you have paid for this or not, if someone smashes you car up and you cant drive it, then you can just walk into your local hire facility, hire the same car and add this to the claim.
Indeed, many of the dealership repairers will offer a courtesy car as standard anyway - so a really think it is a way of getting an extra £20 off each policy.
On the other hand, the legal assistance coverage i would say is a lot better value for money since it even allows to to act against your own insurance company at their cost![/quote]
Correct, if someone else causes an accident then you can hire a car and add it to the claim! The guaranteed replacement vehicle bit is if YOU cause the accident. For example, i was Fully Comp and caused a crash, but had no replacement car cover, so i had to wait for repairer to fix and return my car before i was on the road again. Of course, i had the option of renting one at my own cost...
I understand that Insurers are taking away their "driving other cars" extension to combat uninsured drivers. I hear that some people insure their tiny group 1 car but drive their "real" car under this extension, albeit only third party cover.
Good idea, I suppose, but not sure it is the way to combat uninsured drivers
Good idea, I suppose, but not sure it is the way to combat uninsured drivers
eltax91 said:
.
Correct, if someone else causes an accident then you can hire a car and add it to the claim! The guaranteed replacement vehicle bit is if YOU cause the accident. For example, i was Fully Comp and caused a crash, but had no replacement car cover, so i had to wait for repairer to fix and return my car before i was on the road again. Of course, i had the option of renting one at my own cost...
Correct, if someone else causes an accident then you can hire a car and add it to the claim! The guaranteed replacement vehicle bit is if YOU cause the accident. For example, i was Fully Comp and caused a crash, but had no replacement car cover, so i had to wait for repairer to fix and return my car before i was on the road again. Of course, i had the option of renting one at my own cost...
Not what i found when my daughter was rear ended in her own fully comp car- company that is seen on TV saying "yes " to almost anything (including courtesy car) , said N0 - not till repairer gives them ok --and that was going to take up to three days .
I was told by a BiB that a lot of the driving without insurance cases he has seen recently have been down to people believing they are covered 3rd party when they are not - a lot of people seem to forget that the vehicle must be covered under its own policy for this clause to apply (usually).
Mattt said:
I was told by a BiB that a lot of the driving without insurance cases he has seen recently have been down to people believing they are covered 3rd party when they are not - a lot of people seem to forget that the vehicle must be covered under its own policy for this clause to apply (usually).
That is incorrect and a bit of a well worn myth. The vehicle does not need another policy to be running for you to drive it under 3rd party cover on your insurance. It becomes an issue if you park the car in a public place and leave it unattended.
There was a thing recently that Govt had persuaded insurers not to provide cover for picking up cars from pounds. The problem was that cars impounded for lack of insurance were being collected by a mate who did have insurance - 3rd party on any car. There was even one guy charging to pick up cars and deliver back to uninsured drivers.
Thus the idea of impounding cars was avoided. This may be connected to OP.
Thus the idea of impounding cars was avoided. This may be connected to OP.
herewego said:
Mattt said:
Are you sure? I've just asked a friend who works for a major insurer and she says it is the case.
It depends what your certificate says. If it says the car you want to drive must have it's own insurance then it must, otherwise not.
It actually depends on what the policy says.
tigger1 said:
Fully comp on my cover - insured 3rd party to drive anything else with owners permission, but have heard rumours that this entitlement will be dropped from most policies very soon.
It's a plan, but as far as I can tell, insurers are monitoring the public reaction.
I strongly recommend that we insist on that particular policy extension when we renew policies or it will be lost forever.
I have found it invaluable on countless occasions, and will be sure to insist on it.
safespeed said:
herewego said:
Mattt said:
Are you sure? I've just asked a friend who works for a major insurer and she says it is the case.
It depends what your certificate says. If it says the car you want to drive must have it's own insurance then it must, otherwise not.
It actually depends on what the policy says.
In my opinion such an exclusion should be stated on the certificate since that is the only document that would be required by the police. Have you actually seen a related certificate and policy in which the certicate states "any other car", but the policy states "only if specifically insured"?
herewego said:
safespeed said:
herewego said:
Mattt said:
Are you sure? I've just asked a friend who works for a major insurer and she says it is the case.
It depends what your certificate says. If it says the car you want to drive must have it's own insurance then it must, otherwise not.
It actually depends on what the policy says.
In my opinion such an exclusion should be stated on the certificate since that is the only document that would be required by the police. Have you actually seen a related certificate and policy in which the certicate states "any other car", but the policy states "only if specifically insured"?
Interesting question, and I can shed no more light.
The policy is certainly definitive in the contract between the insured and the insurer.
I honestly don't know where that leaves the Police. Potentially in difficulty, I would have thought.
safespeed said:
herewego said:
safespeed said:
herewego said:
Mattt said:
Are you sure? I've just asked a friend who works for a major insurer and she says it is the case.
It depends what your certificate says. If it says the car you want to drive must have it's own insurance then it must, otherwise not.
It actually depends on what the policy says.
In my opinion such an exclusion should be stated on the certificate since that is the only document that would be required by the police. Have you actually seen a related certificate and policy in which the certicate states "any other car", but the policy states "only if specifically insured"?
Interesting question, and I can shed no more light.
The policy is certainly definitive in the contract between the insured and the insurer.
I honestly don't know where that leaves the Police. Potentially in difficulty, I would have thought.
In my experience on this issue, I've never seen or have any knowledge of the policy contradicting what is on the certificate in relation to driving other vehicles.
If it doesn't say on the certificate that the other vehicle has to have it's own insurance as well as your own cover, then you are covered.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st April 14:24
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
herewego said:
safespeed said:
herewego said:
Mattt said:
Are you sure? I've just asked a friend who works for a major insurer and she says it is the case.
It depends what your certificate says. If it says the car you want to drive must have it's own insurance then it must, otherwise not.
It actually depends on what the policy says.
In my opinion such an exclusion should be stated on the certificate since that is the only document that would be required by the police. Have you actually seen a related certificate and policy in which the certicate states "any other car", but the policy states "only if specifically insured"?
Interesting question, and I can shed no more light.
The policy is certainly definitive in the contract between the insured and the insurer.
I honestly don't know where that leaves the Police. Potentially in difficulty, I would have thought.
In my experience on this issue, I've never seen or have any knowledge of the policy contradicting what is on the certificate in relation to driving other vehicles.
If it doesn't say on the certificate that the other vehicle has to have it's own insurance as well as your own cover, then you are covered.
But ultimately, if the certificate is in conflict with the policy, the certificate loses. But perhaps that's a civil sort of lose, where the certificate is more the criminal law face of the thing.
With modern complex policies, there must be ample opportunities for conflict, I would think. But maybe the insurance companies have been there and somehow have the thing compartmentalised - civil in the policy and criminal in the certificate?
Cheers guys, I will make sure that I "demand" it be included in my next cover (while yet), but thought I'd ask if it was already filtering through.
I would never use something like this to drive for "normal everyday" use, and in the past when I've borrowed cars I've always paid £10 or so to be added to the fully comp policy, often at my insistence rather than the owner.
I would never use something like this to drive for "normal everyday" use, and in the past when I've borrowed cars I've always paid £10 or so to be added to the fully comp policy, often at my insistence rather than the owner.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff