Cover for vehicles not owned by the insured

Snafu

Have arranged TPFT cover through eCar. On the cover note, it states that the policyholder is covered (third party only) to drive cars belonging to others with their permission!

I've checked the FAQ on the eCar website & it says that this cover is always provided on their policies as long as the insured is over 25.

Might be worthwhile considering eCar then if this sort of cover is important to you on a TPFT policy. Particularly good for us as they were cheapest by a mile too.

lisyloo

This company seems to trot out the emergency phrase quite often

If it says in your terms and conditions that you are covered then you are covered. However you also need to be honest with the insurer about the risks.

If you are driving a Ferrari every day on the 3rd party cover from your peugot 106 policy then they may see this as fraud.

However you are entitled to do what it says in the policy.

When I would expect it to be used would be (for example) if the driver is ill and a colleague has to drive them home or take them to hospital.

For a regular arrangement you need to get proper insurance arranged or you risk being found guilty of fraud or not being insured.

However if you are using it as specified and something unseen arises (like illness outside of insurance company working hours) then they have to honour their own Terms and conditions.

custardy

also be aware that most of the time the 'other' car you drive must have its own insurance.

darich

custardy wrote: »

also be aware that most of the time the 'other' car you drive must have its own insurance.

Why must it?
If i was driving your car with your permission, then my policy covers the damage to the other car, not yours. Fair enough. Why must there be another policy in place when my policy will cover your car for damage?

I realise if i park the car at my house and it's stolen then it could be argued that your policy would cover it since mine only covers the car when i'm driving. But i don't imagine you'd need to insure the car for my policy to cover it.

EDIT: I've re-read your post and agree that if i owned 2 cars then you're correct - but if i borrowed your car i don't think you need to insure it for me to be covered under my own policy.

custardy

the reason a lot insist theres already a policy on the car you drive is to prevent you having a 2nd car(even if its not in your name)and using that as a day to day drive.
if they insist on it being insured seperatly then the chances of you doing the above are slim

poppy_f1

vikingaero wrote: »

Poppy,

Was the insurer Direct Line? This company seems to trot out the emergency phrase quite often.

sorry for not replying before but yeah it was direct line

MoscowFlyer

darich wrote: »

Why must it?
If i was driving your car with your permission, then my policy covers the damage to the other car, not yours. Fair enough. Why must there be another policy in place when my policy will cover your car for damage?

I realise if i park the car at my house and it's stolen then it could be argued that your policy would cover it since mine only covers the car when i'm driving. But i don't imagine you'd need to insure the car for my policy to cover it.

EDIT: I've re-read your post and agree that if i owned 2 cars then you're correct - but if i borrowed your car i don't think you need to insure it for me to be covered under my own policy.

DOC is never available on a vehicle that is uninsured, regardless of who's car it is.

mattymoo

As Moscowflyer says, it is not available on uninsured cars. Insurers are not stupid. If it did work like that then people would do this:-

1) buy and insure a cheap car (Fiat panda or similar group 1).
2) buy but register in a different name the car they really want, e.g. hot hatch or whatever.
3) rely on the DOC cover from the Panda to cover the higher group car.

For DOC cover to be legal (from a police prosecution point of view) both cars have to have a policy covering them and be owned by different people.

MarkyMarkD

Whilst people seem to like putting forward this notion that DOC only applies to cars which are insured in their own right, I don't accept that is the case.

Show me ONE insurer's wording which says "DOC is only applicable to cars which are insured in their own right". I have never seen one. The standard wording on certificates of insurance for DOC also does not mention this "requirement".

The idea of people buying a Fiat Panda and driving a Ferrari on DOC is ludicrous - the Ferrari would not be covered for theft or damage. Anyone who wants to take that sort of risk is a muppet.

lisyloo

Why must there be another policy in place when my policy will cover your car for damage?

What happens if it's parked on a hill, handbrake fails and it rolls down and damages other cars? i.e. no driver or spontaneously combusts due to an electrical fault.

My own understanding was that a car had to be insured to be on the road.

Who is responsible when there is no driver as in the above scenarios?