I want to insure someone else's already insured vehicle.
Discussion
I've done this before. Most insurers only insure if you own the vehicle but some don't ask. I can't remember who I used. I needed to borrow a car for a week fully comp and rather than use expensive temp polices. Just took out a full year policy on a friends car that already had a policy. I then cancelled it after 7 days. (You have 14 days in which you can cancel car insurance) They then just charge you for the days you used and refunded the rest of the premium. I think it ended up costing me a £10er for the week.
KevinCamaroSS said:
You do surprise me here, how do personal car leases get insured? You do not own the car, yet I think you provide the insurance yourself?
That is slightly different, as most (but not all) will accept that form of lease as ownership. It’s a potentially similar argument over HP, or any other form of secured loan on the car. However, a car definitely owned by a friend is very different to a car owned by a finance company and there are clear protocols in place for who gets what payment in the event of a claim, which is the main issue nowadays, rather than the historic Insurable Interest, which is fading away. TwigtheWonderkid said:
There won't be 2 policies covering the same risk. The car owners policy doesn't cover the OP to drive. So it doesn't cover the risk of the OP driving or being in charge of the vehicle. The OP will take out a policy just covering himself to drive.
Unless I've misunderstood the situation.
Forget driving. Let’s say the car is stolen from the local High Street, or sets on fire in the supermarket car park, or gets vandalised while the car is at the OP’s house. Unless I've misunderstood the situation.
Which policy pays out? Both policies will cover all of those perils, so which pays?
HantsRat said:
I've done this before. Most insurers only insure if you own the vehicle but some don't ask. I can't remember who I used. I needed to borrow a car for a week fully comp and rather than use expensive temp polices. Just took out a full year policy on a friends car that already had a policy. I then cancelled it after 7 days. (You have 14 days in which you can cancel car insurance) They then just charge you for the days you used and refunded the rest of the premium. I think it ended up costing me a £10er for the week.
I’d be amazed if insurers don’t ask who owns the car. They might have it in their assumptions, that you confirm are correct, but can’t think why an insurer wouldn’t ask such a fundamentally important question. Handy that you can’t remember who you took this policy out with, as I’d like to see their question set.
Gavia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There won't be 2 policies covering the same risk. The car owners policy doesn't cover the OP to drive. So it doesn't cover the risk of the OP driving or being in charge of the vehicle. The OP will take out a policy just covering himself to drive.
Unless I've misunderstood the situation.
Forget driving. Let’s say the car is stolen from the local High Street, or sets on fire in the supermarket car park, or gets vandalised while the car is at the OP’s house. Unless I've misunderstood the situation.
Which policy pays out? Both policies will cover all of those perils, so which pays?
You are massively overcomplicating something that isn't complicated.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Whenever you make a claim of that sort, fire, theft or vandalism, they always ask who the last driver was, or who the person in charge was. If the OP was the last driver/person in charge, and the OP isn't covered on the owners policy, thay won't be covering the loss, so there is only 1 policy with cover in place. That's the policy the OP has taken out to cover himself.
You are massively overcomplicating something that isn't complicated.
I’m not. You are massively overcomplicating something that isn't complicated.
Gavia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Whenever you make a claim of that sort, fire, theft or vandalism, they always ask who the last driver was, or who the person in charge was. If the OP was the last driver/person in charge, and the OP isn't covered on the owners policy, thay won't be covering the loss, so there is only 1 policy with cover in place. That's the policy the OP has taken out to cover himself.
You are massively overcomplicating something that isn't complicated.
I’m not. You are massively overcomplicating something that isn't complicated.
Now if your 17 y/o son had his own standalone policy to cover him driving your vehicle, that policy would cover it no problem.
If I'm wrong, then explain the point of firms like Marmalade who specialise in selling secondary policies where the car is already insured elsewhere??
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ok, you insure your car, you and the wife only driving. Your 17 y/o son borrows it, drives it uninsured, parks outside a nightclub, and it gets stolen. You think when you tell your insurer what's happened, that claim is covered because they cover theft and no one was driving??? Of course it's not.
Now if your 17 y/o son had his own standalone policy to cover him driving your vehicle, that policy would cover it no problem.
And you’re suggesting I’m complicating things? Your scenario is just adding confusion. Now if your 17 y/o son had his own standalone policy to cover him driving your vehicle, that policy would cover it no problem.
In both scenarios a theft has occurred and theft is covered on both policies. In the second scenario, It’s up to the insurers to decide who’s paying, but I’m damn sure that the son’s policy will be expecting your policy to cover half the loss. In the first case of the son “stealing” the car then it being stolen again, then there will be cover, but often only if you report the son to the police for the initial theft.
Theft, fire, vandalism etc are both dual insured in this case.
If the son crashes the car, then there’s no discussion as he’s the driver.
Note sure why there is debate or confusion around this. As someone has mentioned veygo already provide this car sharing insurance so the questions are already answered. My daughter uses it to borrow my car. From the veygo site...
Making a claim? You’re covered.
The cover is fully comprehensive which means that, if you need to make a claim, your friend or family member’s policy is not affected and their car is covered up to the current market value.
Here are the key facts.
https://quote.veygo.com/static/key-facts.pdf
I'm sure veygo will answer any other specific question by phone.
Making a claim? You’re covered.
The cover is fully comprehensive which means that, if you need to make a claim, your friend or family member’s policy is not affected and their car is covered up to the current market value.
Here are the key facts.
https://quote.veygo.com/static/key-facts.pdf
I'm sure veygo will answer any other specific question by phone.
Gavia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ok, you insure your car, you and the wife only driving. Your 17 y/o son borrows it, drives it uninsured, parks outside a nightclub, and it gets stolen. You think when you tell your insurer what's happened, that claim is covered because they cover theft and no one was driving??? Of course it's not.
Now if your 17 y/o son had his own standalone policy to cover him driving your vehicle, that policy would cover it no problem.
And you’re suggesting I’m complicating things? Your scenario is just adding confusion. Now if your 17 y/o son had his own standalone policy to cover him driving your vehicle, that policy would cover it no problem.
In both scenarios a theft has occurred and theft is covered on both policies. In the second scenario, It’s up to the insurers to decide who’s paying, but I’m damn sure that the son’s policy will be expecting your policy to cover half the loss. In the first case of the son “stealing” the car then it being stolen again, then there will be cover, but often only if you report the son to the police for the initial theft.
Theft, fire, vandalism etc are both dual insured in this case.
If the son crashes the car, then there’s no discussion as he’s the driver.
If the son had his own policy on the car, that policy would pay out 100% for the theft claim. The parents policy would not get involved as he wasn't a driver on their policy. The son's insurers would not look for a contribution from the parents' policy.
It makes no difference if its a crash or a theft/vandalism. It's based on the person driving, or person who was
last driving/in charge of the vehicle.
You never answered my question re Marmalade. They do this all the time, sell cover on cars that are already insured elsewhere. It's their business model!!
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 26th February 13:13
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not saying the son stole the car, he takes it with his parents' permission.
If the son had his own policy on the car, that policy would pay out 100% for the theft claim. The parents policy would not get involved as he wasn't a driver on their policy. The son's insurers would not look for a contribution from the parents' policy.
It makes no difference if its a crash or a theft/vandalism. It's based on the person driving, or person who was
last driving/in charge of the vehicle.
You never answered my question re Marmalade. They do this all the time, sell cover on cars that are already insured elsewhere. It's their business model!!
The car was stolen from outside a nightclub, who drove it there is moot, whether they were insured or not. If the car is dual insured then both insurers would be making a contribution. If the son had his own policy on the car, that policy would pay out 100% for the theft claim. The parents policy would not get involved as he wasn't a driver on their policy. The son's insurers would not look for a contribution from the parents' policy.
It makes no difference if its a crash or a theft/vandalism. It's based on the person driving, or person who was
last driving/in charge of the vehicle.
You never answered my question re Marmalade. They do this all the time, sell cover on cars that are already insured elsewhere. It's their business model!!
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 26th February 13:13
It doesn’t matter who was the last driver for losses incurred that are covered on two or more policies, all contribute to it.
We’re never going to agree on this, but your stance is flawed.
I didn’t answer you Marmalade question as it wasn’t asked when I replied. However I’ve had a look at their website and can’t find the detialed policy booklet, which is a bit poor. However they do say
marmalade website said:
My parents are worried about how it will affect their policy. Is it Dual Insurance?
It won’t affect the main insurance at all! This insurance cover is a policy that covers you while you are behind the wheel. Here is the technical bit… Dual insurance occurs when, in the case of insurance against loss or damage, the same items are insured against a certain risk under more than one insurance policy. Cover is only provided under this policy for you, an occasional driver who is not named on the main insurance. The main insurance covers the vehicle and named drivers - therefore it does not cover the same risk as the main policy.
This doesn’t answer the question at all and appears to be deliberately vague, but seems to point back to the main insurance, which makes little sense. It won’t affect the main insurance at all! This insurance cover is a policy that covers you while you are behind the wheel. Here is the technical bit… Dual insurance occurs when, in the case of insurance against loss or damage, the same items are insured against a certain risk under more than one insurance policy. Cover is only provided under this policy for you, an occasional driver who is not named on the main insurance. The main insurance covers the vehicle and named drivers - therefore it does not cover the same risk as the main policy.
Gavia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not saying the son stole the car, he takes it with his parents' permission.
If the son had his own policy on the car, that policy would pay out 100% for the theft claim. The parents policy would not get involved as he wasn't a driver on their policy. The son's insurers would not look for a contribution from the parents' policy.
It makes no difference if its a crash or a theft/vandalism. It's based on the person driving, or person who was
last driving/in charge of the vehicle.
You never answered my question re Marmalade. They do this all the time, sell cover on cars that are already insured elsewhere. It's their business model!!
The car was stolen from outside a nightclub, who drove it there is moot, whether they were insured or not. If the car is dual insured then both insurers would be making a contribution. If the son had his own policy on the car, that policy would pay out 100% for the theft claim. The parents policy would not get involved as he wasn't a driver on their policy. The son's insurers would not look for a contribution from the parents' policy.
It makes no difference if its a crash or a theft/vandalism. It's based on the person driving, or person who was
last driving/in charge of the vehicle.
You never answered my question re Marmalade. They do this all the time, sell cover on cars that are already insured elsewhere. It's their business model!!
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 26th February 13:13
It doesn’t matter who was the last driver for losses incurred that are covered on two or more policies, all contribute to it.
We’re never going to agree on this, but your stance is flawed.
I didn’t answer you Marmalade question as it wasn’t asked when I replied. However I’ve had a look at their website and can’t find the detialed policy booklet, which is a bit poor. However they do say
marmalade website said:
My parents are worried about how it will affect their policy. Is it Dual Insurance?
It won’t affect the main insurance at all! This insurance cover is a policy that covers you while you are behind the wheel. Here is the technical bit… Dual insurance occurs when, in the case of insurance against loss or damage, the same items are insured against a certain risk under more than one insurance policy. Cover is only provided under this policy for you, an occasional driver who is not named on the main insurance. The main insurance covers the vehicle and named drivers - therefore it does not cover the same risk as the main policy.
This doesn’t answer the question at all and appears to be deliberately vague, but seems to point back to the main insurance, which makes little sense. It won’t affect the main insurance at all! This insurance cover is a policy that covers you while you are behind the wheel. Here is the technical bit… Dual insurance occurs when, in the case of insurance against loss or damage, the same items are insured against a certain risk under more than one insurance policy. Cover is only provided under this policy for you, an occasional driver who is not named on the main insurance. The main insurance covers the vehicle and named drivers - therefore it does not cover the same risk as the main policy.
Who the last driver was or who was in charge is not a moot point at all. It's just as relevant as who was driving in the event of an accident. That's why they ask who the last driver was when you submit a theft claim.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. Two insurers contributing to a single claim, only happens when 2 policies are covering the same risk, and one policy isn't more specific or relevant than the other.
In the case of a theft claim where 2 policies are in force, if the person in charge / last driver was only covered on one of the policies, that policy would pay 100%, end of story.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The marmalade answer is perfectly clear. read it again.
Who the last driver was or who was in charge is not a moot point at all. It's just as relevant as who was driving in the event of an accident. That's why they ask who the last driver was when you submit a theft claim.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. Two insurers contributing to a single claim, only happens when 2 policies are covering the same risk, and one policy isn't more specific or relevant than the other.
In the case of a theft claim where 2 policies are in force, if the person in charge / last driver was only covered on one of the policies, that policy would pay 100%, end of story.
Me repeating my stance and you repeating yours indefinitely will serve no purpose at all. I know where I stand on this and you know where you stand, lets just leave it and one day someone may prove one of us right and the other wrong in the real world. Who the last driver was or who was in charge is not a moot point at all. It's just as relevant as who was driving in the event of an accident. That's why they ask who the last driver was when you submit a theft claim.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. Two insurers contributing to a single claim, only happens when 2 policies are covering the same risk, and one policy isn't more specific or relevant than the other.
In the case of a theft claim where 2 policies are in force, if the person in charge / last driver was only covered on one of the policies, that policy would pay 100%, end of story.
Gavia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The marmalade answer is perfectly clear. read it again.
Who the last driver was or who was in charge is not a moot point at all. It's just as relevant as who was driving in the event of an accident. That's why they ask who the last driver was when you submit a theft claim.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. Two insurers contributing to a single claim, only happens when 2 policies are covering the same risk, and one policy isn't more specific or relevant than the other.
In the case of a theft claim where 2 policies are in force, if the person in charge / last driver was only covered on one of the policies, that policy would pay 100%, end of story.
Me repeating my stance and you repeating yours indefinitely will serve no purpose at all. I know where I stand on this and you know where you stand, lets just leave it and one day someone may prove one of us right and the other wrong in the real world. Who the last driver was or who was in charge is not a moot point at all. It's just as relevant as who was driving in the event of an accident. That's why they ask who the last driver was when you submit a theft claim.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this point. Two insurers contributing to a single claim, only happens when 2 policies are covering the same risk, and one policy isn't more specific or relevant than the other.
In the case of a theft claim where 2 policies are in force, if the person in charge / last driver was only covered on one of the policies, that policy would pay 100%, end of story.
marmalade website said:
My parents are worried about how it will affect their policy. Is it Dual Insurance?
It won’t affect the main insurance at all! This insurance cover is a policy that covers you while you are behind the wheel. Here is the technical bit… Dual insurance occurs when, in the case of insurance against loss or damage, the same items are insured against a certain risk under more than one insurance policy. Cover is only provided under this policy for you, an occasional driver who is not named on the main insurance. The main insurance covers the vehicle and named drivers - therefore it does not cover the same risk as the main policy.
My view on this is that the quote from the Marmalade website is a bit of a red herring. Marmalade is targeted towards learner drivers/recent passees and as such is more on the specialist side a la day insurance. It won’t affect the main insurance at all! This insurance cover is a policy that covers you while you are behind the wheel. Here is the technical bit… Dual insurance occurs when, in the case of insurance against loss or damage, the same items are insured against a certain risk under more than one insurance policy. Cover is only provided under this policy for you, an occasional driver who is not named on the main insurance. The main insurance covers the vehicle and named drivers - therefore it does not cover the same risk as the main policy.
vikingaero said:
I've asked for advice from dacouch who is a member on here and on MSE. Hopefully he'll appear with some wise words.
A question that was answered by dacouch back in 2014, perhaps ?dacouch in 2014 said:
vikingaero said:
Most general Insurers don't like dual insurance on cars, but you can have it. It complicates things and where they would have been non-liable to pay it can drag them in to a 50% payout. So some general Insurers will check there is no dual policy in force.
If the OP's son has a crash then the claim should be split 50/50 between both Insurers. Same if the car is stolen. You can't readily select which policy you want to claim from. Any Insurer who is faced with a payout is going to think: Hang on. We can get the sons Insurer to pay 50%. So let's do it.
So when can you have dual insurance? Day insurance which often specifically states that it pays out in preference to the main annual policy. Traders insurance for when a car is in for works. Some business insurance - for example Police Officers covered under the Police Policy if using their own vehicle to respond. My company tops up cover for us if we use our private vehicles for work use or need to commute to another site. A lot of business policies for bigger companies have cover to drive your car if you have caused an obstruction on their premises.
It doesn't say the son is a named driver on the policyholder's own insurance, if he's not covered by the OP's insurance then a lot of the information you've posted about each insurer paying 50% would be incorrectIf the OP's son has a crash then the claim should be split 50/50 between both Insurers. Same if the car is stolen. You can't readily select which policy you want to claim from. Any Insurer who is faced with a payout is going to think: Hang on. We can get the sons Insurer to pay 50%. So let's do it.
So when can you have dual insurance? Day insurance which often specifically states that it pays out in preference to the main annual policy. Traders insurance for when a car is in for works. Some business insurance - for example Police Officers covered under the Police Policy if using their own vehicle to respond. My company tops up cover for us if we use our private vehicles for work use or need to commute to another site. A lot of business policies for bigger companies have cover to drive your car if you have caused an obstruction on their premises.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff