Insurance: Driving Other Cars

[No ideas for a name]

I know this has been done before, but I can't find a definitive answer in the search...

For reasons of being absolutely sure I am covered, I wish to have insurance which covers driving other cars, even if the car in question is NOT insured. I am extremely unlikely to actually need to call on this cover - I just want to be sure it would never be me looking at 6 points when I may not know the state of the vehicle's insurance.

I fully understand the continuous insurance requirements, but the continuous insurance offence would be down to the RK, not the driver.

My broker tells me that no-one will offer insurance for DOC, where that vehicle does not have cover of its own.
I have read the policy wording, and despite there being no exclusion/condition of this requirement on the actual certificate, sure enough the following appears in the policy wording

[i]"If your certificate of motor insurance says so, you are insured under this section to drive a private motor car not owned by you and not hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as:
<snip some other stuff>
there is a current and valid policy of insurance in force for the vehicle being driven under this section.".[/i]

Does anyone know of any insurers that will not have the exclusion of the DOC extension requiring existing cover to be in place?

Wording above is from ABC which is a division of Liverpool Victoria.

[davek_964]

I just scanned my policy and can't find anything saying the other car has to be insured. The certificate says :

Named insured persons may also drive other vehicles if the vehicle concerned:
● is not owned by you or a named insured person, and
● is not available for the regular use of you or a named insured person
● is registered with the DVLA and is being driven in the United Kingdom
● is not being hired by any person other than you
● is not listed in your schedule

My insurance provides fully comp cover when driving other cars - Dual Private Clients via AIB.

[pas320]

I was insured with Ageas Insurance via Cornmarket Insurance up until May of this year, and I had the same question. The Insurance certificate showed DOC with the usual exclusions, (hired, release from seizure etc) but nothing in the Policy wording / booklet categorically stated the other car must be insured,
I rang Cornmarket who confirmed that the other car required it's own insurance in place- still not being convinced I actually rang Ageas and asked them the same question: their answer was " you do not need the other vehicle to be insured - if this had been the case it would have said so in the Policy booklet wording."

So the answer is (was?) that Ageas did at that time provide the cover you require. Don't always believe the broker ask the Insurer direct.

[pas320]

I was insured with Ageas Insurance via Cornmarket Insurance up until May of this year, and I had the same question. The Insurance certificate showed DOC with the usual exclusions, (hired, release from seizure etc) but nothing in the Policy wording / booklet categorically stated the other car must be insured,
I rang Cornmarket who confirmed that the other car required it's own insurance in place- still not being convinced I actually rang Ageas and asked them the same question: their answer was " you do not need the other vehicle to be insured - if this had been the case it would have said so in the Policy booklet wording."

So the answer is (was?) that Ageas did at that time provide the cover you require. Don't always believe the broker ask the Insurer direct.

[Sheepshanks]

LV= doesn't have a requirement for the other car to be insured.

People are always going on about this - I think it's more unusual for the requirement to be there, than not.

[Bigends]

I'm with Esure - I can drive other cars but they must be insured by their owner.
This isnt clear on my certificate but is apparent when looking into the actual schedule.


The policyholder may also drive a car that is not owned by them, or hired or leased to them under a hire purchase
or leasing arrangement providing they have permission to drive the car.
Cover is only in force if:
- The car is insured by the owner

[Pica-Pica]

My NFU Mutual policy allows me Third Party Only cover to:

• Drive another car (with their prior permission)
• Move another car by driving it (if it is obstructing movement of my car).

There is neither mention if in these circumstances these cars would not to be insured.
I could add that it is not clear (as far as I can see) if I have to ensure the MOT is up to date, and that I have to be sure (reasonably, or as far as I can ascertain) that the other car is roadworthy.

[Graveworm]

davek_964 said:

I just scanned my policy and can't find anything saying the other car has to be insured. The certificate says :

Named insured persons may also drive other vehicles if the vehicle concerned:
? is not owned by you or a named insured person, and
? is no6t available for the regular use of you or a named insured person
? is registered with the DVLA and is being driven in the United Kingdom
? is not being hired by any person other than you
? is not listed in your schedule

My insurance provides fully comp cover when driving other cars - Dual Private Clients via AIB.

Ditto Dual Aurum, helpfully also allows non householders over 30 to drive my cars.

[No ideas for a name]

Sheepshanks said:

LV= doesn't have a requirement for the other car to be insured.

People are always going on about this - I think it's more unusual for the requirement to be there, than not.

Yes, I always used to be with LV for this very reason.
Reading their policy booklet, there is no mention of the other car needing its own cover (as you say). However, there is no way of telling if that document is current (though it is on their web site).

My broker tells me the usual stuff that it isn't possible, and due to continuous insurance requirements the other car will be insured... of course, we know that isn't always going to be the case (though very rare).

My broker has quoted with ABC which is part of LV.. but the booklet is definately different.

I am probably worrying about nothing, and there wouldn't be a problem.

However, consider your mate asks you to run his car down to the MoT station for him. Lets say it is SORN, and you are on your way to a pre-booked MoT. It dosen't need its own insurance to be legal since it is SORN... but it needs cover to be on the road (which I want my DOC cover to er.. cover). Note: This has never happened to me, nor is it likely... I just don't want to be in the situation where I could get 6 points due to moving an unknown vehicle.

More likely you get given a loan car by a garage, and due to some admin error it doesn't get put on their policy - if you get stopped, it is an absolute offence with a 6 point issue.

[Sheepshanks]

No ideas for a name said:

More likely you get given a loan car by a garage, and due to some admin error it doesn't get put on their policy - if you get stopped, it is an absolute offence with a 6 point issue.

If you're with LV= you're automatically covered fully comp for garage courtesy cars. Think Aviva is the same. So that's a big chunk of the market.

It's as well to keep your witts about you on these matters though. If you do drive your mate's SORN'd car to the garage you'd be a prime candidate to be pulled for no insurance. OK, you've got cover - but once you've been stopped the car is likely to get a going over - can you be sure the car is roadworthy?

[No ideas for a name]

Sheepshanks said:

If you're with LV= you're automatically covered fully comp for garage courtesy cars. Think Aviva is the same. So that's a big chunk of the market.

It's as well to keep your witts about you on these matters though. If you do drive your mate's SORN'd car to the garage you'd be a prime candidate to be pulled for no insurance. OK, you've got cover - but once you've been stopped the car is likely to get a going over - can you be sure the car is roadworthy?

Ah.. yes it appears I would be covered for a vehicle loaned by the motor trade via the ABC policy... so maybe that example falls flat.

My example of the SORN'd car was purely that, a contrived example, that a car could be legally in that state, and your LV policy would cover you, but my policy with ABC wouldn't. I have never done it, and not really likely to do so. I am not mesing with vehicles that are likely to be in an uninsured state - but it is possible, maybe helping load a classic for a mate.

I think I will refer back to the broker and see if we can go with LV.
It is such a small chance of ever being called upon, but I like to fully understand the limits of cover, and risk.

[Saleen836]

But if you are driving a borrowed car that is not insured and you are using your policy extension for cover you can only drive it between 2 private premises, if you pop to the shop and get out of the car it becomes illegal as there is no insurance policy held on that vehicle.

[catso]

My insurance covers other cars but specifies that the other car must be covered under a separate policy.

If the car was not so covered and you were covered to drive it then what would be the status if you left it parked on the road?

Since you're not actually driving it, would it not then be on the road without insurance?

[No ideas for a name]

Saleen836 said:

But if you are driving a borrowed car that is not insured and you are using your policy extension for cover you can only drive it between 2 private premises, if you pop to the shop and get out of the car it becomes illegal as there is no insurance policy held on that vehicle.

Quite right - but it is the RK at fault not the driver.
If the RK stuffs up and doesn't insure their car, then they deserve the penalty.
If the RK tells me it is insured when it isn't, and I get stopped - then I don't want the penalty.

[Gavia]

As stated LV= doesn’t require the other car to be insured, nor does Direct Aline or their other brands (Churchill, Privilege and a few White labelled products in the link below

https://u-k-insurance.co.uk

[catso]

So if an uninsured vehicle is being driven on 'driving other cars' extension and it's flagged up for no insurance, presumably the RK receives the penalty?

Is that not a 'get out' for no insurance, if not actually stopped at the roadside?

"My mate wiv insurance was driving innit... "

[Gavia]

catso said:

So if an uninsured vehicle is being driven on 'driving other cars' extension and it's flagged up for no insurance, presumably the RK receives the penalty?

Is that not a 'get out' for no insurance, if not actually stopped at the roadside?

"My mate wiv insurance was driving innit... "

It gets flagged for no insurance, but the driver then shows it has insurance at the point it was being driven, so no penalty for that.

There would be a penalty for having no road tax, as the car would have to be SORN, as no ongoing policy in place, but that’s a non-endorseable fine. You’re right that the RK would be responsible for that.

In reality, if a car is flagged for no insurance then it’s limely to be pulled there and then not sent a penalty in the post.

[Sheepshanks]

Saleen836 said:

But if you are driving a borrowed car that is not insured and you are using your policy extension for cover you can only drive it between 2 private premises, if you pop to the shop and get out of the car it becomes illegal as there is no insurance policy held on that vehicle.

There's case law that says that's not correct. IIRC it's a bit vague though - I think the stop has to be incidental to the journey, ie stopping to collect something.

[Sheepshanks]

catso said:

So if an uninsured vehicle is being driven on 'driving other cars' extension and it's flagged up for no insurance, presumably the RK receives the penalty?

I don't know about "no insurance" - I think it's just a £100 penalty under Continuous Insurance Enforcement.

[roadsmash]

I’m with LV= currently and can confirm my policy says nothing about other cars having to be insured, regarding DOC.

Although, the DOC cover is 3rd party only.