MY No Claims bonus gone to named driver

nobbysn*ts

InsideInsurance wrote: »

A contract can be made up of multiple documents with cross references between them

The policybook aspect refers you to the certificate of insurance which means it can be varied as policybooks are set and issued to all policyholders without change but certificates of insurance are created for each policy.

Hence also you will get the same policybook if you buy TPO, TPFT or Comp cover and it is the Schedule that advises you which sections of the policybook applies to your policy

Now, if you want to pay me to buy an insurance policy from them to see what comes out on the certificate of insurance so that I can post here then I am happy to do so, obviously payment in cleared funds first.

That's why you fall over so many times in your posts. You were very keen to defend the insurers, quote the 'wording' then you admit the insurer has completely vague t&c's, and now you admit you have no idea what they actually are.

rs65

Driving other cars extension
The cover under this section of the policy is extended to the specific driver noted in the Certificate of Motor Insurance as having the benefit of this extension

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

'Specific driver' isn't specific, unless that is further defined as the main driver, policyholder, or any driver covered by the policy. But from what you have quoted, it seems to tend towards the policyholder. They don't have the option of not following their own wording.

I think the specific driver will be the one named on the certificate as having this cover.

nobbysn*ts

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

That's an odd t&c. What does it actually say on the policy document? Mine uses the phrase 'the policyholder .......' not the 'main driver...'

Which is why I asked what it actually said, rather than simply asking others to guess.

InsideInsurance

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

That's why you fall over so many times in your posts. You were very keen to defend the insurers, quote the 'wording' then you admit the insurer has completely vague t&c's, and now you admit you have no idea what they actually are.

No, your inability to grasp basic concepts is why we keep going in circles.

The T&Cs are not vague at all, they say read your certificate to see who has the DOC extension. This is not normal wording as it doesnt explicitly state the Policyholder is the one with the DOC privileges.

Take Direct Line as a comparison and it states:

If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy provides the same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other motor car

It explicitly states that the DOC is to the benefit of "you" with you being defined earlier in the document as the policyholder.

This does not make them vague, its very precise, you just need another document that you get when you actually buy the insurance to confirm who has the benefit. The fact it isnt locked down to the policyholder as per the DL wording would strongly suggest that at times it isnt the PH that gets the benefit as otherwise they'd follow the industry norm of stating in the section that the PH gets the benefit.

nobbysn*ts

InsideInsurance wrote: »

No, your inability to grasp basic concepts is why we keep going in circles.

The T&Cs are not vague at all, they say read your certificate to see who has the DOC extension. This is not normal wording as it doesnt explicitly state the Policyholder is the one with the DOC privileges.

Take Direct Line as a comparison and it states:


It explicitly states that the DOC is to the benefit of "you" with you being defined earlier in the document as the policyholder.

This does not make them vague, its very precise, you just need another document that you get when you actually buy the insurance to confirm who has the benefit. The fact it isnt locked down to the policyholder as per the DL wording would strongly suggest that at times it isnt the PH that gets the benefit as otherwise they'd follow the industry norm of stating in the section that the PH gets the benefit.

??Direct Line, are you confused again?

InsideInsurance

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

??Direct Line, are you confused again?

:rotfl: :rotfl: