Running a work errand in my car - would I be covered on my car insurance?

Quentin

Were the op to be involved in a claim from a third party whilst driving on an uninsured business journey then the insurer would deal with the claim then chase the policyholder to reimburse them.

thenudeone

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I might have insurance limiting me to 5000 miles pa. If I made a claim the company might investigate and might find I had actually done 5001 miles. They might decide to pay up anyway, or they might decide to reject my claim. But a policeman doing a random insurance check can't ascertain that,

There is a massive difference that you've missed.

The Certificate of insurance DOES NOT mention any limits on mileage.

But it does specifically state what type of use is covered. If the car is used for another purpose, there is no certificate in place for that use = Offence and seizure.

It's no different to the car being driven by a driver who isn't on the certificate.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

There must be a difference between "having insurance" in the Road Traffic Act sense, and an insurance company declining to pay out some or all of a particular claim.

The certificate and the insurance database might or might include business use, but if the interpretation of business use can only be determined after the event on investigation by the insurance company then I don't see how the policeman on the spot can be in a position to pre-judge the insurerance company's assessment. Especially if no incident has occurred, eg it is a random check for some other reason.

I might have insurance limiting me to 5000 miles pa. If I made a claim the company might investigate and might find I had actually done 5001 miles. They might decide to pay up anyway, or they might decide to reject my claim. But a policeman doing a random insurance check can't ascertain that, so as far as the law is concerned I am insured. Perhaps months later after a long argument the company refuses payment, or agrees only a limited claim. I don't then suddenly, and retrospectively, become guilty of driving without insurance. It is purely a contractual matter between me and the insurance company.

Let me tell you, the database does cover business use. He for example the vehicle was loaded up with company goods during the working day. It wouldn't take an insurance company investigation to work out what's going on.

For the sake of a phone call why risk it?

jetsetgem

You would not be covered whether it was 1 or 3 errands a year.

I have just had an incident during a works journey and it has had to be included in my legal statement that I was on a works journey so if you didn't have the insurance for the journey, it would soon be picked up if you did have any bumps/accidents. For info my business use add on usually costs about £30 one of my policies in the past only went up 85p to add it on!

Better to be safe than sorry or just inform your workplace that you are not insured to do what they are asking.

raskazz

thenudeone wrote: »

I know that a large pizza chain has done exactly this.

Would that be one named after a popular tile-based game by any chance?

System

thenudeone wrote: »

There is a massive difference that you've missed.

The Certificate of insurance DOES NOT mention any limits on mileage.

But insurance cover depends on complying with all the conditions in the policy documents - not just what it says on the certificate.

You can't seriously be saying that to be legally insured, in the sense of avoiding prosecution for not having insurance, you only have to comply with the terms stated on the certificate?

It is frequently argued here that insurance is usually only valid if the car is in roadworthy condition. But it doesn't say that on my insurance certificate - it does in the policy documents. Compliance with all the small print is a condition of insurance, the certificate is only a summary of the major points.

The policeman at the checkpoint doesn't know what is in the small print, nor does he know any additional points that may have been confirmed in writing between the policyholder and the insurer.
That is the whole point I have been making - there is a difference between the contractual arrangements between the insured and the insurer, and the superficial existence of valid insurance presented on the certificate, or the insurance database.

dacouch

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

But insurance cover depends on complying with all the conditions in the policy documents - not just what it says on the certificate.

You can't seriously be saying that to be legally insured, in the sense of avoiding prosecution for not having insurance, you only have to comply with the terms stated on the certificate?

It is frequently argued here that insurance is usually only valid if the car is in roadworthy condition. But it doesn't say that on my insurance certificate - it does in the policy documents. Compliance with all the small print is a condition of insurance, the certificate is only a summary of the major points.

The policeman at the checkpoint doesn't know what is in the small print, nor does he know any additional points that may have been confirmed in writing between the policyholder and the insurer.
That is the whole point I have been making - there is a difference between the contractual arrangements between the insured and the insurer, and the superficial existence of valid insurance presented on the certificate, or the insurance database.

Car Insurance is subject to the Road Traffic Act which in effect states vehicles must have a minimum of Third Party Cover. The Certificate's sole purpose is to confirm that the vehicle holds Third Party Cover along with who is covered to drive and for what class of business.

The RTA places certain stipulations on Insurers including them having to pay for third party claims if a non named driver who is at fault in an accident and identified whether they be a thieve or a family member who "Borrowed" your car. Providing their identified eg by the police etc then the Insurer of the vehicle is liable.

The RTA also means the Insurers have to pay claims irrespective of what the policy wording says. For instance some companies refuse to cover claims where your convicted of drink or drugs as a result of the accident. However they still have to pay third party claims, they can at a later date attempt to recover their money from the policyholder.

If you look on your Certificate, it states (They all do) "Notice to Third Parties, nothing contained on this Certificate affects your ability to claim"

As vehicle Insurance is a legal requirement you need a Certificate of Insurance which has to contain specific information, the only other compulsory Insurance being Employers Liability Insurance which you also get a certificate for. No other policies issue a Certificate as they're not legally required.

thenudeone

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The policeman at the checkpoint doesn't know what is in the small print, nor does he know any additional points that may have been confirmed in writing between the policyholder and the insurer.

But he does know what use is stated on the certificate.

I refer you to the exact wording of the relevant law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,

The law does not say: the driver must be insured.

It very specifically states that THE USE of the vehicle BY THAT DRIVER must be covered.

It's very clear that the USE is just as much an issue as THE DRIVER as far as the law is concerned.

Unless the driver and the use are covered by the certificate - no cover exists. Whether the driver has complied with any other policy or contractual terms is completely irrelevant, but whether he's using the car in a way described on the certificate is not.

dacouch

When the RTA refers to the word "Use" it generally means as in driving / being in charge of the vehicle.

thegirlintheattic

Business Use - Class 1 only cost be an extra £17 a year, did try to argue it down to 0 but they were not having it.

Off topic: I'm slightly concerned that some people think it's a matter of course for teachers to have business insurance and to have pupils in their car. Best avoided at all costs and no school should be insisting that teachers have business cover or that teachers use their cars for anything more than commuting.