Fully Comp insurance - assumptions?

[Deleted User]

Hi guys,

Just had my renewal though and right in the middle of my renewal policy document I get:

Driving other cars
The main driver xxxx xxxxxx is not insured to drive another vehicle.

Nothing else has changed with my car/circumstances, so I don't get why they would feel the need to omit that? Though to be fair, the policy is basically unrecognisable from last year; no legal, breakdown and they want another £20 for protecting my NCB!

Bit weird isn't it? Am I wrong then in assuming that all fully comp policies insure the driver for using another vehicle with the owners permission, with third party protection? I must be

Their quote wasn't competitive anyway and I've already found cheaper but for years I have always assumed I'm covered for driving other vehicles, third-party, as I've had no reason to think otherwise?

Your thoughts?

TonyMMM

slipd wrote: »

...Am I wrong then in assuming that all fully comp policies insure the driver for using another vehicle with the owners permission, with third party protection? I must be

Hasn't been true for a number of years now .... It was always part of fully comp cover, but because of people abusing the system and pushing up premiums, it has been disappearing rapidly. Some policies still offer it automatically, but many don't unless you ask (and pay) for it.

But they know most people don't read their policy documents properly and assume the cover is there, get caught out and end up being convicted of a serious offence - so they are just making it as clear as they can for you.

[Deleted User]

TonyMMM wrote: »

Hasn't been true for a number of years now .... It was always part of fully comp cover, but because of people abusing the system and pushing up premiums, it has been disappearing rapidly. Some policies still offer it automatically, but many don't unless you ask (and pay) for it.

But they know most people don't read their policy documents properly and assume the cover is there, get caught out and end up being convicted of a serious offence - so they are just making it as clear as they can for you.

Thanks! Very interesting... I shall recheck my new quotes then - it might be omitted from them too?

All seems a bit "cloak and dagger" - and I'd always held insurance companies in such high regard? Right up there with solicitor's, vet's and double-glazing salesmen!

Aretnap

slipd wrote: »

Bit weird isn't it? Am I wrong then in assuming that all fully comp policies insure the driver for using another vehicle with the owners permission, with third party protection? I must be

Yes. If your policy includes driving other cars cover it will say so on the certificate - if the certificate doesn't say you have it then you don't.

In days of yore it was reasonably standard; in fact I've had third party only policies which included driving other cars as well as comprehensive ones. But as the insurance market has become ever more focussed on price, more and more insurers have started not including it for young drivers, or not including it at all, as they strip out non-essential features of their policies in order to get higher up the lists on price comparison sites.

As it's a feature of my policy that I've used maybe twice in my life it's not a loss I'd feel particularly keenly, and I certainly wouldn't be inclined to pay extra for it. So I guess it's the fault of people like me that it's no longer standard.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I think one reason it has gone away is that it has been a way to avoid insuring a car properly.

Say you want to drive a Porsche 911 and you can just about afford to insure a Nissan Micra. You get dad to own the 911 and then you borrow it and drive it on your Micra insurance where you wouldn't get a quote for the Porsche. The Micra insurers are then bearing the risk of you driving a Porsche for the payment of the risk of a Micra, and though the Porsche will only be third party, there is a significantly higher risk of accident together with greater third party damage potential in a Porsche (starting with all those hedges ploughed up).

Aretnap

slipd wrote: »

All seems a bit "cloak and dagger"

It's hardly cloak and dagger if they've sent you a letter telling you what they're doing.

[Deleted User]

Aretnap wrote: »

It's hardly cloak and dagger if they've sent you a letter telling you what they're doing.

Fair point, but I'm just wondering how many years previously it's not been on my policy (and other peoples!) and not been noticed... just highlights the fact that you really do need to be thorough with your paperwork these days.

Anyway, I'm off now to hand myself in at the nearest police station for any retrospective insurance fraud I may or may not have committed

Warwick_Hunt

slipd wrote: »

Fair point, but I'm just wondering how many years previously it's not been on my policy (and other peoples!) and not been noticed... just highlights the fact that you really do need to be thorough with your paperwork these days.

Anyway, I'm off now to hand myself in at the nearest police station for any retrospective insurance fraud I may or may not have committed

Don't you read your policy?

I've noticed they've gone from any vehicle, then car, then not owned by a partner, be insured under its own policy. Not to be used to bail out a seized vehicle.

People took the !!!! so you can't really blame them.