Quick car insurance question.

roddydogs

So whats the answer?

neilmcl

raskazz wrote: »

You are confusing two separate issues.

1) There is nothing in the policy to exclude driving other cars if the policyholder is not in possession of the schedule vehicle. Hence driving other cars does still operate as long as the policyholder complies with the requirements of that clause.

2) If the schedule vehicle has been sold, it is usually best to inform the insurer just in case the new owner has not insured it themselves, in which case you can get in a lot of bother. The insurer may then suspend the policy or give a reasonable time in which to substitute the vehicle on cover.

In general driving other cars does cease if the schedule vehicle is no longer in the policyholder's possession. But not with More Than.

I don't think I am confusing anything. Please explain my first quote from MoreThan where it states that the policy is an insuurance contract based on the information provided in the schedule amd certificate of insurance. Obviously If that information changes and the company is not informed then then the contract is invalid.

If you guys really think your right then I suggest you give Morethan a call.

Paradigm

I've e-mailed More Than for the definative answer

I'd be very surprised if he was still covered but we'll find out.

dacouch

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't think I am confusing anything. Please explain my first quote from MoreThan where it states that the policy is an insuurance contract based on the information provided in the schedule amd certificate of insurance. Obviously If that information changes and the company is not informed then then the contract is invalid.

If you guys really think your right then I suggest you give Morethan a call.

If you read the statement in the More Than policy as follows

"We will provide cover under this policy only if the material information you gave us when applying for insurance
or when making a claim, either by speaking to us or on any document, is true as far as you know. You must have
asked all drivers who are to be covered by the policy any relevant questions you need to get this information".

Note this states they will provide cover based on the "Material Information" (Material Facts) based on the information when you APPLIED for the Insurance.

Here are some relevant quotes from the Ombudsman.

"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is well established that the customer’s duty to disclose any relevant facts to the firm arises only at certain times. These are: [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]when the firm and customer finish the contract 'negotiations' and the customer takes out the policy;[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]when the policy is renewed; or[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]when a claim is made."

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/36/terms-of-policy.htm

[/SIZE][/FONT]the legal position
An insurance contract is a ‘contract of utmost good faith’, which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are ‘material’ (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.
A ‘material’ fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to ‘avoid’ the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy.


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

Note the requirement to declare "Material Facts" at the time of applying for cover eg inception or renewal.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]calling a spade a shovel - lack of clarity in policy documents[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is hardly surprising that misunderstandings occur when some insurers appear to share the view of Lewis Carroll�s Humpty Dumpty that �a word means what I want it to mean.� Insurance jargon is not for the uninitiated. Most insurers recognise this and devote much time and thought to the wording of their policies. But however straightforward the words in the policy may appear, lack of clarity can persist.
[/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Motor insurers, too, sometimes fail to make it clear what is covered. We receive far too many complaints from people � usually young people � who have been caught driving without insurance. Almost invariably these are not reckless people who have chosen not to take out insurance. Typically, they are responsible individuals who mistakenly believed their policy covered them for driving other cars because of the policy wording �you are covered if your policy schedule includes this risk�. The policy schedule will be silent unless the risk is included, but many people fail to understand the significance of the omission. They ask why the exclusion was not made clearer. The insurers� response is �We do not have to state that the risk is excluded � it just was not included�. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As we have noted, most of these complainants are young. Insurers know very well that young people drive one another�s cars. That is why cover for driving other cars is included for most drivers � other than young ones. Insurers are, of course, legally correct in saying they are not obliged to state everything a policy does not cover. However, it seems to us that where a particular situation regularly causes problems, it would be in the best interests of motorists, insurers and the general public if insurers made the correct position abundantly clear.
[/FONT]


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/4/calling-a-spade-a-shovel.htm
As an earlier poster has pointed out Quinn specifically state you still have to have the vehicle insured on the policy for the DOC to be effective. They have put this in on purpose as they know the Ombudsman requires any exclusions on these lines to be clear otherwise he will normally rule against the Insurer. There are a few other companies that have wised up to this and included a similar line in their DOC section as well as some companies just insert a line to the effect "The main vehicle has not been written off"

For the record Raskazz is an underwriter for a top ten motor insurer and as such is very good on the technical side (Better than me).

Contacting the Insurer and advising them you are between cars would be a sensible thing to do as will give him some time whilst continuing the DOC and also protecting against claims coming via the MID.

If the OP contacts More Than and advises them he has sold the car, is not likely to buy another but wants to carry on using the DOC there is a good chance they will want the Insurance cancelled as they don't like just covering DOC. There is also a chance depending on the level of knowledge in the person replying to the email that they will not fully understand their own product and start stating incorrect information about DOC which is a fairly common mistake by normal customer services staff

raskazz

Dacouch is spot on again - the reason that insurers who do wish to avoid 'driving other cars' liabilities when the schedule vehicle is no longer in the insured's possession specify it in the policy wording is because they cannot rely on some tenuous interpretation of utmost good faith to avoid any liabilities that may arise.

mikey72

I'm insured while I own the car, but saying as it's a main question on the proposal, ie do you own the car, and it's very nearly impossible to insure a car you don't own, (unless it's your partners), when I sell it, my insurance is void.
Then it's all void, including driving other cars.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

I'm insured while I own the car, but saying as it's a main question on the proposal, ie do you own the car, and it's very nearly impossible to insure a car you don't own, (unless it's your partners), when I sell it, my insurance is void.
Then it's all void, including driving other cars.

The Proposal Form is merely a contemporaneous account of material facts at inception. This has already been explained by dacouch.

Thus, the driving other cars benefit will not cease upon sale of the schedule vehicle unless specifically stated in the policy wording.

Paradigm

Still waiting for a reply. Must have confused them

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

The Proposal Form is merely a contemporaneous account of material facts at inception. This has already been explained by dacouch.

Thus, the driving other cars benefit will not cease upon sale of the schedule vehicle unless specifically stated in the policy wording.

I told them I had a full licence as well, if I get banned can I carry on, the policy doesn't say I need one, if I had one when I took out the policy, will it still pay for damage to my own car if I crash?

dacouch

Have a look at your policy or certificate of insurance, they will almost certainly state subject to the driver holding a valid licence

Here is the relevant part of the wording from the More Than policy about licences

THIS POLICY DOES NOT PROVIDE COVER FOR THE FOLLOWING:
B Any car you have insured with us under another policy
C Any death, injury, loss or damage that occurs while any car is being used in the following ways:
• While it is being driven by or is in the charge of any person, for the purposes of being driven, who:
– is not covered to drive in the schedule of this policy;
– does not have a current and valid UK or EU licence to drive the car;

http://www.morethan.com/Process/Documents/motorpoli.pdf page 23

Mikey if you tell me which Insurer you are with I'll find the relevant exclusion for you