A few questions on car insurance (for a couple)

Bigphil1474

OP, don't forget that commuting is different to business use. Commuting is driving to and from a place of work. If you are transporting goods to/from the office, or making work related journeys in the car, then you need business use. It doesn't usually cost much - on mine it's about £25 a year if that.

facade

As above, but commuting is driving to and from a single regular place of work (I imagine, but don't know for sure that this would apply to all the named drivers, rather than just the policy holder, but check the terms of the policy)
If you go on a course, or go to another office in the day you are not covered, and you are also not covered transporting company goods (again, I'm not sure how far this goes, is carrying a company laptop loaned to you "transporting company goods?")

Best is to just have business use on the policy (but don't ever admit that you have it, then you can't be asked to "just nip to the stationers to get a box of copier paper" in your car)

SouthLondonUser

It would be interesting to see if there is any case law on this. At the end of the day, it's a matter for the courts to rule on.

If I go to a one-day training course by car, and the course is paid for by my employer, is that commuting, is that business use, would I be covered? We may all have our opinions but in the end it's one for the courts.

There have been cases of insurers refusing to pay because drivers had undeclared stickers on their vehicle (unauthorised modifications!).

Mercdriver

My Hiscox motor policy has a few anomalies, the policy holder on my policy is Myself and my wife. It then lists the insured persons as Myself, my wife and her father. So some companies do do joint policies.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Probably not worth getting too uptight about the details. Business cover for the possibility that my wife might need to drive the car at work if hers was laid up was minimal. They will be interested in the mileage that you intend to cover. If you have commuting cover, then driving to a course would not be covered. What will have an influence on your cover is your job description: accounts clerk - never let out of the office; travelling salesman - road warrior who lives in their car.

If the car is genuinely shared then it is no big deal to arbitrarily choose the cheapest way round for main and additional driver. The no-no is claiming a cheap driver does the driving when they rarely drive - this is fronting and leaves you uninsured.

Direct Line allow NCD to accrue for named drivers.

Insurance is about profiling, so the oddest things influence policy, for example, a Fiat Panda may be more expensive than a VW Golf to insure because of the people who TEND to drive it, so even if you don't fit the profile, you are tarnished by association. Don't overthink it, get some quotes.

Oddest insurance quirk this week, changing status from cohabiting to married put my premium up!

Bigphil1474

Ian, I knew there was a down side to getting married. OP, going to a course in your car wouldn't be commuting. As façade rightly pointed out above, it is to a single place of work. The T&C's of each company maybe slightly different so there could be some variation on the definition. Obviously, if you had an incident on your way to a course and didn't have business cover, you'd be daft to tell anyone you were on your way to a work course. I've had RAC cover on my car through my bank account for years, but it is only for SD&P use, not work. Hence, whenever I've had to use the RAC, it luckily was always when I had a day off from work.

facade

Bigphil1474 wrote: »

Obviously, if you had an incident on your way to a course and didn't have business cover, you'd be daft to tell anyone you were on your way to a work course.

The more worrying thing is if you get stopped by the Police, and you innocently answer the truth without thinking to what seems an innocent question,
e.g. "How come you've got 8 different toner cartridges in the boot?" "What is the purpose of your journey?"
They can 'phone your insurer to see if you have business cover, and if you haven't you end up with 6 points for an insurance offence.

As they say, "The jails are full of people who talked their way in there"

SouthLondonUser

This is more of a curiosity than a practical question, but suppose you drive to a conference, a training course, or a business lunch/dinner/ Suppose this only happens once in a blue moon, and you can prove this because you are in London and your travelcard records show you commute by public transport every single day. What kind of insurance cover would be required to drive to these events? In most cases the only options I have seen are social only, or social and commuting to a single place of work. Driving to a conference is neither, but surely motorists cannot be required to buy specialist insurance if they drive to a conference once in a blue moon, or can they?
As I said before, we can all have our opinions, but since it's the courts, not us, deciding, it would be interesting to understand if there is any case law on this.

facade

Don't know any caselaw, but you would need business cover, doesn't matter if you do it once, or everyday. Your insurer would say that you are breaking the terms of your policy, and drop you in it with the Police.
No insurance is one of those offences where you have to prove that you have it, which requires your insurer to agree in writing that you are covered, why would they when you have it in writing already that you are not?

(As to the once in a blue moon/first time thing, it is amazing how many people get caught the very first time they drive with no insurance/no tax/above the speed limit, and the courts take no notice, being more of the cynical opinion that it is the very first time that they have been caught.)

SouthLondonUser

@facade, speeding is not comparable. A motorist caught speeding cannot prove whether it was the first time he did it, or the first time he was caught. We can prove how often we commute to work by public transport, because our travelcards (and, in my case, the records of the GPS tracker on my motorcycle) would very clearly show that we always commute by public transport or by motorcycle, not by car.

As for the insurance cover, it's not as black and white as you think it is. There would be an insurance contract in place. Interpreting the terms and conditions of the contract is for the courts. If the contract says: "social not commuting" and you commute every single day the interpretation is straightforward. If it says "social not commuting" and you drive to a conference, how "driving to a conference" shall be interpreted does not sound as straightforward to me.
For example, like I said there have been cases of insurers refusing to pay because motorists had undeclared stickers on their vehicles. I don't know how those cases ended.