Can a 2nd car be covered by 1st cars policy

achtunglady

Hi, i was just wondering if car 1 was insured as fully comprehensive with one named driver would cover a second car with third party fire and theft only or does it have to be insured in its own right? The second car would only be driven by the policy holder of car 1.

Pat_Mustard_3

I'm by no means an insurance specialist - but I do think that you are right- in a fashion.

I have a policy for two cars with my wife as a named driver on each - we share cars and drive both equally. We are both insured fully comp on both cars which allows us to drive any car, other than our own with third party, fire and theft cover as long as we have the owners permission.

If you are looking to insure a second car of your own under this premis then I would hazard a guess and say that this is not possible. After all, the insurance company would loose a fully comp premium.

raskazz

achtunglady wrote: »

Hi, i was just wondering if car 1 was insured as fully comprehensive with one named driver would cover a second car with third party fire and theft only or does it have to be insured in its own right? The second car would only be driven by the policy holder of car 1.

The 'driving other cars' provision only applies if the 'other' car (2) does not belong to the policyholder of the insured car (1). So in short, if you own both cars, this is not possible.

Secondly, even if the driving other cars provision did apply, it only gives third party cover not third party, fire and theft.

achtunglady

raskazz wrote: »

The 'driving other cars' provision only applies if the 'other' car (2) does not belong to the policyholder of the insured car (1). So in short, if you own both cars, this is not possible.

Secondly, even if the driving other cars provision did apply, it only gives third party cover not third party, fire and theft.

So if car 1 was owned by the policy holder and the second one owned by myself would that work? We havent got the second car yet, just weighing up the costs.

advantix

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

The other car has to have it's own insurance too. You wouldn't for example be able to drive a friend's car on your insurance, if they didn't have their own insurance on it.

That's what it says on my policy document anyway.

My policy enables me to drive ANY vehicle not belonging to or hired by me, providing i have the owners permission. The other vehicle does NOT have to have its own insurance in force.

So I guess whether or not the other vehicle has to be insured is entirely down to the insurance company concerned. I don't think any sweeping statement that the other car has to be insured or doesn't have to be insured can be made. It is entrely down to individual policies.

And of course, the vehicle would need MOT and insurance in order to buy TAX for it anyway!

Labman_2

How would you be able to get road tax for a vehicle that doesn't have insurance?

raskazz

achtunglady wrote: »

So if car 1 was owned by the policy holder and the second one owned by myself would that work? We havent got the second car yet, just weighing up the costs.

Sorry, you've lost me. Who is policyholder of car 1?

In any case, if the 'other' car is not insured in it's own right, you cannot tax it, and secondly it will be showing on the MID as not SORNed but not insured either. So as soon as you parked it in a public place it could be impounded. And it's not covered for theft.

peterbaker

This question or variations of it does the rounds from time to time but the answer is always the same, and because the police can get an instant answer on their in-car laptop thesedays, it ought to be obvious that what is proposed is not a MoneySaving idea, it's promulgating a stupid idea that could easily see you in court after being routinely stopped (I was reading an article this morning about a guy in East London who was fined £400 and got points on his licence because he when stopped produced a certificate for another vehicle). At worst you could leave a trail of injured parties in your wake who then struggle to obtain compensation because you are uninsured.

As another poster says, you can't tax a vehicle unless you have a valid insurance linked to the registration number of the vehicle, or (in some cases) if you declare and sign a paper that you have arranged exactly that.

If you control the purchase (or not) of insurance on two cars, and there is no insurance arranged on the second vehicle then quite simply it and you will be uninsured when you use it.

The Driving Other Cars extension on your cheap Mini Metro policy for example, was never intended as a way for you to drive your wife's Porsche or your second Mini Metro any time you like without disclosing the real risk exposure to your insurers or the other car's insurers i.e. fraudulent non-disclosure. A DOC extension was originally intended to give you the minimum legal cover if you found yourself in an unforeseen situation out of normal office hours where you needed to drive a car not owned by you. That's all. If the situation was unforeseen then there would be no fraudulent non-disclosure of material facts either when you arranged the insurance you are relying on, or at the point you decided to drive the second car anyway. If the situation is foreseen then talk to your insurers or the second car's insurers about it first and pay the extra premium.

If you believe otherwise then are you saying that the rest of us who declare what we drive to our insurers are mugs? No I should hope not.

There never has been a legitimate MoneySavingExpert idea in using DOC extensions to avoid proper car insurance premiums, so would everyone please refrain from suggesting that there might be.

darich

The second car would also not be covered for sitting outside your house.
And if that means on the road, then it is a legal requirement that the car is insured whether it is being driven or not.
If it's on your drive then it doesn't NEED to be insured but it probably should incase it gets stolen or set on fire.

achtunglady

raskazz wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me. Who is policyholder of car 1? My husband is, i'm just a named driver.

In any case, if the 'other' car is not insured in it's own right, you cannot tax it, and secondly it will be showing on the MID as not SORNed but not insured either. So as soon as you parked it in a public place it could be impounded. And it's not covered for theft.

What if it was bought with tax and mot and just before they were due to run out insure it in its own right third party??

lisyloo

What if it was bought with tax and mot and just before they were due to run out insure it in its own right third party??

You can get round the tax issue (for example by buying a policy and then cancelling it).
However as petebaker says there are issues about not representing the risks.

I have a friend who occasionally drives my car with his DOC extension whilst I am cycling (my car is an old banger so happy with 3rd party only). He has athritis so can't cycle with me.
I have NEVER seen any information in a policy to state that it has to be unforseen or out of hours.
I don't actually think I'm defrauding them and if it's meant to be for emergencies only (rather than for very occassional use) then WHY DON'T THEY TELL US THAT.

If I knew that I couldn't use the DOC extension once or twice then I would call them and arrange insurance but I have never seen the emergency or out of hours use clause anywhere in the policy so I would expect him to be covered because it says he is covered for DOC.

BTW - he has his own car and his own insurance, but the cycle rack fits onto my car.