Be careful - I made a HUGE mistake, inadvertently...

sheepieju

Last w/e, a friend and I were travelling in her car for a few days away. At about the halfway point, we agreed I would take over driving. We both believed we would be covered by, at least, minimal insurance as we both had fully comprehensive insurance on each of our cars. As luck would have it, we hadn't gone 20 yds, just rejoining the carriageway after stopping for 'comforts' at the service station, when another driver ran into the back of us just before we completely left the slip road.
I/we are now in an invidious position - looks as tho' I have no insurance as I was driving 'the other' car, so open to prosecution for driving without insurance - and having, probably, to fund the whole lot as well.
Everyone I have spoken to believes, as I did, that 'fully comprehensive' gives one minimal insurance in a car being driven with the owner's permission. BE WARNED - THIS IS NOT SO. I am now trying to obtain an extension to my policy but, apparently, this is not automatic and may be refused. I don't know what to do if this happens as I have been driving other cars with the owner's permission for quite a time - I had no idea I was transgressing by doing this; it was only to take the owners out for a change of scene and drove their cars as they are elderly and like to be taken out in their own vehicle.
What a mess of potage...does anyone have any advice to offer as to the way forward?

Quentin

You being uninsured doesn't affect the third party having to pay for your repairs if they are liable.

You should claim directly from the third party.

Phantom247

Wouldn't Ex Turpi be an issue?

rs65

Phantom247 wrote: »

Wouldn't Ex Turpi be an issue?

Shouldn't be. It would be the owner of the car pursuing the third party anyway.

OP, the fact that you were driving uninsured makes no difference to the cause of the damage. You weren't covered for damage to the car you were driving even if you had the appropriate extension to your own cover.

Annisele

Some fully comp policies do give you third party insurance when driving other cars - but as OP found, some don't. Always best to check!

There's a potential risk to the OP's friend, as the owner of the car. Permitting a vehicle to be used by an uninsured driver is also an offence, but OP's friend might have a defence if they reasonably believed OP was insured. I'm not sure whether believing OP counts as reasonable, or whether the friend should have asked to see the insurance certificate. I doubt there'd be a prosecution in these circumstances, but there is a risk.

Driving without insurance looks to be anything from 6 points and a £200 fine to disqualification and a £5,000 fine (source). Given the circumstances, I'd expect something very much on the lower end of that scale.

But as to the damage, if it was the other party's fault it's the other party (or his insurer) who should pay. OP wouldn't have been covered for damage he caused to the car he was driving in any case; the "minimal insurance" he believed he had would only have been third party.

Thrugelmir

Annisele wrote: »

Some fully comp policies do give you third party insurance when driving other cars - but as OP found, some don't. Always best to check!

Never assume. People normally go for the cheapest insurance cover without ever comparing how policies differ.

FlameCloud

sheepieju wrote: »

I am now trying to obtain an extension to my policy but, apparently, this is not automatic and may be refused.

Even if they insurer may have offered an extension, they cannot ante date cover.

sheepieju

Very many thanks for all the comments - I just wanted to highlight the fact that 3P cover is not automatic as it certainly used to be when driving another car with the owner's permission. The great majority of folk to whom I have spoken are as misinformed as I certainly was. As 'we' were rejoining the A303, it is a moot point as to whether 3P is liable as skidding/driving into us or we are at fault, even tho' probably stationary or nearly so. Crossing absolutely everything..

Dangermac

rs65 wrote: »

Shouldn't be. It would be the owner of the car pursuing the third party anyway.

OP, the fact that you were driving uninsured makes no difference to the cost of the damage. You weren't covered for damage to the car you were driving even if you had the appropriate extension to your own cover.

You've been reading too many CII books I think, without necessarily understanding them!

The claim is not as a result of the wrongful act (i.e no insurance). The 3rd party's negligence is the cause of the claim. The lack of insurance is essentially irrelevant.

DM

zeon999

I never get this personally and have heard of it happening so many times.

Why on earth would you drive a vehicle that someone else owns on 3rd party insurance unless its a few hundred quid banger. Even if it is a knacker not worth anything surely you regard driving without insurance as very important and not something you just go on assumptions that your covered.

Your not alone like I say this is really common, I just don't get it though I would not drive someone elses vehicle unless I knew 100% I was covered its just not worth getting done for driving without insurance for a start.

Expensive mistake if you get done for driving without insurance, 6 points big fine and also will have to declare it for your own insurance meaning that will cost a lot more from now on.

Good luck anyway and hope they give your some cover to save you getting done for it.

rs65

Dangermac wrote: »

You've been reading too many CII books I think, without necessarily understanding them!

The claim is not as a result of the wrongful act (i.e no insurance). The 3rd party's negligence is the cause of the claim. The lack of insurance is essentially irrelevant.

DM

Eh? What do CII books have to do with anything?

I've corrected 'cost' to 'cause' but aren't you just saying the same thing?