Did you know? You may be able to drive someone else's car on your insurance.

luckyfool

My understanding of this type of cover is that not only can you not own the car, but someone else must be insured as the primary driver, even if you plan to drive it occassionaly under your own insurance. It may be that this is just the "spirit" of the insurance, but it is how I have always interpreted it.

Bossyboots

bunking_off wrote:

Really? It only scratches the surface, but my policy (Frizzell) does provide limited medical expenses (£250 - assume it's the money for them to cut you out of the car), plus £10k personal accident benefit....I'm ashamed to admit that I've never really looked into what that consists of as I'd be covered on policies that form part of my employment package in any case.

Not quite in the same league as the £20M third party cover, but not a total zero.

I have done a search of personal accident benefit cover and with the odd difference here and there for the occupational ones, they all simply cover death or permanent disability such as loss of an eye or a limb. Frizzell do not state what their cover is on their website so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would have to assume it is this simple basic policy.

Are you sure your employment package covers anything different from the above? Your employment package (like some of the ones I looked at) may cover a deeper breadth of disabling injury but may well still not cover standard injuries (such as whiplash) from a car accident. The cover is likely to only be for financial loss, rather than compensation for those injuries as well, designed to ensure your income is protected if you need to be off work. There is also the issue of whether you could claim compensation when the accident was your fault in any event although I think you would still get the death/disability benefit.

bunking_off

Bossyboots wrote:

Are you sure your employment package covers anything different from the above? Your employment package (like some of the ones I looked at) may cover a deeper breadth of disabling injury but may well still not cover standard injuries (such as whiplash) from a car accident. The cover is likely to only be for financial loss, rather than compensation for those injuries as well, designed to ensure your income is protected if you need to be off work. There is also the issue of whether you could claim compensation when the accident was your fault in any event although I think you would still get the death/disability benefit.

Interesting research BB. On the employment package cover, my T&Cs dictate;

- 4x salary if I die (potentially more if actually on company business - that's discretionary)
- 6 months salary on full pay if unable to work through illness (no distinction between illness & injury)
- thereafter 6 months salary on half pay if unable to work
- pensioned off thereafter if chronically unable to work (would get 2/3 salary)
- obviously no compensation, but then again by definition compansation is generically there to compensate you for loss of income/trauma, and it wouldn't exactly be fair to be pushing for compensation for self imposed trauma (if accident wasn't my fault it'd come off other party's insurance)

...these aren't particularly accident/car related conditions, they're just the standard T&Cs should I fall ill.

Bossyboots

bunking_off wrote:

Interesting research BB. On the employment package cover, my T&Cs dictate;

- 4x salary if I die (potentially more if actually on company business - that's discretionary)
- 6 months salary on full pay if unable to work through illness (no distinction between illness & injury)
- thereafter 6 months salary on half pay if unable to work
- pensioned off thereafter if chronically unable to work (would get 2/3 salary)
- obviously no compensation, but then again by definition compansation is generically there to compensate you for loss of income/trauma, and it wouldn't exactly be fair to be pushing for compensation for self imposed trauma (if accident wasn't my fault it'd come off other party's insurance)

...these aren't particularly accident/car related conditions, they're just the standard T&Cs should I fall ill.

These are employer health benefits and if the driver you had been talking about had the benefit of these, then assuming injury was covered, they could invoke that if necessary.

This is of course entirely aside from the point you raised about your vehicle insurance paying out to the at fault insured for injuries which does not appear to be the case, but I would be interested to know how your policy defines the cover of the personal accident benefit.

BTW any jobs going at your place?!

bunking_off

Bossyboots wrote:

BTW any jobs going at your place?!

Yes, but unfortunately not in the way you'd be wanting....approx 75% of the workforce have been made redundant in the last 6 years....plenty of jobs going, just not many staying!!

Returning to the thread, yes, I think your original point was that the driver relying on the "occasional use" clause would not get payment for injury, but that this wasn't as much of a downside as might be imagined because even if they were driving on a "proper" policy, they wouldn't get any personal injury cover. My point was that on a "proper" policy they would have some cover, but as you say, I'd concede that this would be pretty limited.

rizla01

Well, I don't know about elsewhere but in the part of Essex where I live you can drive without ANY insurance, Tax or MOT.

Circumstances recently caused me to be unable to get the final MOT for my car (Parts availability & my laziness) for almost a month.

I have driven my car around this area over the past 4-5 years and I am more likly to be overtaken by a Dodo than a Panda.

Cops in Cars are a very rare breed indeed, today.

sellingmysoul666

I have looked at my policy & the rac give 3rd party cover for this ( not that i have every done it)

endaria

sorry i don't understand any of this. i have fully comp insurance and am the only permitted driver of my car. when my mum visits me on the train (and i live 200 miles away) can she drive my car? she has fully comp. i thought that because i was the only named driver for my car that only i could drive it, and that driving permissions only extended to other cars when the insurance registered to that car permitted any driver. is this not the case??


please someone explain!

losgiganteskid

endaria wrote:

sorry i don't understand any of this. i have fully comp insurance and am the only permitted driver of my car. when my mum visits me on the train (and i live 200 miles away) can she drive my car? she has fully comp. i thought that because i was the only named driver for my car that only i could drive it, and that driving permissions only extended to other cars when the insurance registered to that car permitted any driver. is this not the case??

please someone explain!

OK - here we go - the cover YOU have on YOUR car is irrelevant and so are the permitted drivers. Your Mother needs to read HER car insurance certificate which MAY or MAY NOT permit HER to drive a car NOT BELONGING TO HER OR HIRED TO HER UNDER A HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. If that is the case she can drive your car legally provided you grant her the permission to do so, BUT whilst she drives YOUR car the cover is THIRD PARTY ONLY.

p1an0player

If I may resurrect this thread..

I have been discussing this "Driving Other Cars extension" with someone who believes that he can allow any adult over 25 with a licence to drive his car, on his insurance, regardless of whether the person driving is insured elsewhere.

Can anyone back me up when I say that's not true? Is it not the case that the person driving, if not insured elsewhere, would need to be a named driver on the insurance?