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

OCDOCD

advantix wrote: »

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.

Do you have some form of trader's policy?

peterbaker

The unforeseen / out of office hours suggestion is my own words but I think it more or less conveys the right message in simple terms. If you forsee a risk scenario then you should disclose it. If it is outside office hours when you foresee it then you can't disclose it until the office opens again.

Insurance law demands that when a prospective policyholder proposes an insurance contract with an insurer, that proposer must disclose ALL MATERIAL FACTS. A material fact is one which might influence a prudent insurer in the rating of the risk i.e. one which might affect what the insurer charges.

That's the law of the land, and that doesn't vary between insurers.

We all know that if you ask the insurer about a foreseen scenario of the type we are discussing here (either the insurer of the driver, or of the second or "other" car) then they will check and decide, and most likely charge an additional premium. If you are minded like advantix then you'd better be damned sure you know insurance law inside out if you plan to play out the same scenario regularly and not tell your insurers. Where for example does it say in advantix's policy that the "other" vehicle "need NOT be insured?" I am sure that advantix might say that nowhere in his 98 pages does it say that it MUST be insured either. Is advantix being a MoneySavingExpert when implying here that no disclosure is necessary? Does advantix pay to insure a mini Metro and then plan to drive a friend's 911 back on a Third Party basis every Saturday fortnight? Is advantix aged 18 or 21 or 25 or 30? Should any insurer be told before he jumps into the Carrera, do we think?

It simply is neither sensible nor socially responsible to suggest that Joe Public is qualified to make up their own mind and talk to no-one about their DOC ideas until challenged by a policeman or an accident.

System

achtunglady wrote: »

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 could still get pulled up by the police as their system would show no insurance in force.

The direct.gov pages on motor insurance state that the VEHICLE must have valid insurance. i.e a MID check must show a valid insurance policy on that vehicle.

The DOC extension is purely an extension. It extends your insurance to supplement the existing insurance on the vehicle by effectively making you a named driver for it

darich

OCDOCD wrote: »

Do you have some form of trader's policy?

The other car would not require to have insurance as long as it is being driven under a DOC extension. However, when the driver exits the car, it is uninsured. This is breaking the law since it is a legal requirement to have your vehicle insured while on the public road.

It would be covered under DOC while being driven by someone but when left parked, the person who owns the vehicle would be breaking the law.

My policy states the same as advantix's - it doesn't state anywhere in my policy that the owner of the other car must have it insured for my DOC to be valid. But once I've left the borrowed car parked up, the owner is in danger of being charged.

darich

!!!!!! wrote: »

You could still get pulled up by the police as their system would show no insurance in force.

The direct.gov pages on motor insurance state that the VEHICLE must have valid insurance. i.e a MID check must show a valid insurance policy on that vehicle.

The DOC extension is purely an extension. It extends your insurance to supplement the existing insurance on the vehicle by effectively making you a named driver for it

Agree with everything except that i think the direct.gov site stating the vehicle must have insurance isn't strictly true....for example......
my car is uninsured but sits in my drive/garage (ie off the public highway) and you ask to borrow it. I give permission and your DOC cover provides you with insurance to drive the car.
If the police pull you over, then the car is legally insured since your DOC covers it, but as i said in my post above, if you parked my car to go into a shop for example, then my car would be uninsured in the car park or on the road and I'd be breaking the law. But as soon as you get back in, your DOC kicks back into life.

Effectively, the car has no insurance but is insured.

Direct.gov states the vehicle must be insured because the DOC only works when that person is in the vehicle and not at any other time.

raskazz

darich wrote: »

Agree with everything except that i think the direct.gov site stating the vehicle must have insurance isn't strictly true....for example......
my car is uninsured but sits in my drive/garage (ie off the public highway) and you ask to borrow it. I give permission and your DOC cover provides you with insurance to drive the car.
If the police pull you over, then the car is legally insured since your DOC covers it, but as i said in my post above, if you parked my car to go into a shop for example, then my car would be uninsured in the car park or on the road and I'd be breaking the law. But as soon as you get back in, your DOC kicks back into life.

Effectively, the car has no insurance but is insured.

Direct.gov states the vehicle must be insured because the DOC only works when that person is in the vehicle and not at any other time.

Exactly, this is the primary issue.

lisyloo

If you forsee a risk scenario then you should disclose it.

I don't particularly see a risk scenario in my friend (same age, same driving history) driving the car rather than me and from his insurances point of view there's no additional risk in him driving my car rather than his own.

Do I need to be an insurance expert here?

I'm not expecting to gain a financial advantage here or do masses of driving on DOC, but if it says you can DRIVE OTHER CARS then that is what I expect.
So if for example I wanted to test drive a privately owned car for sale, then I would expect to be able to do so.

What is the deal here?

Am I expected to ring them up on every occasion and ask their permission?

If so why don't they state this clearly?
i.e. you can only use this in an emergency when you can't phone us otherwise you MUST phone us.

It says no such thing in my policy and I'm pretty sure a court would not expect me to be an insurance expert if push came to shove and it came to court.

If it's says I can "drive other cars" then shouldn't I expect to be able to "drive other cars" on an occassional basis.
e.g. 2 colleagues swapping driving on a long journey.

At the moment this looks like a "get out of jail free" card for insurers.

Any experts got any views? as I'd really like to know if I'm expected to tell them every time I want to use this facility which I'm supposedly already covered for.

DaisyFlower

All insurers word the DOC extension differently in their policy books/websites etc - two examples

RAC
Can I drive other people's cars under my own insurance?

No. The Driving Other Cars extension has historically allowed policyholders only to drive cars that do not belong to them and are not hired to them under a hire purchase agreement, subject to the owner's permission. The cover provided is Third Party only cover which does not cover damage to the car they are driving, but does cover liability for damage and injury to third parties. This cover operates only whilst the Policyholder is driving and was designed to be used in emergency situations only.
Our experience has shown that many drivers do not fully understand the extent or purpose of this cover and that many are utilising it without fully understanding the true cover this extension provides. To support initiatives to reduce deliberate and inadvertent uninsured driving we have removed the extension from this insurance.

Student Motor Company
Driving Other Cars - Car insurance with the driving other car / vehicle extension can still be available to younger drivers.

This feature is normally only available to people aged 25 or over, however some insurers can offer this to slightly young drivers.

It basically lets you driver other cars on a third party only basis, providing the car is insured by another party, and you have the owners permission to drive.
Recently some insurers have withdrawn this feature due to research showing that it was being misused. It was found that drivers were insuring small cars for the ‘driving other car’ benefit and driving much more powerful vehicles. It was originally intended for this to be used as an emergency feature.

Its being phased out with a lot of companies and i'm sure the others will shortly follow suit.

peterbaker

lisyloo wrote: »

...any experts got any views? as I'd really like to know if I'm expected to tell them every time I want to use this facility which I'm supposedly already covered for.

Well you have my view. I don't think the position has become more lenient on the unsuspecting driver in the 30 years I have had a view :rolleyes: ... far from it.

You don't have to tell your insurers or the "other" car's insurers more than once (unless you want to pay extortionate admin charges which are a feature of motor insurance in 2007).

The example given of swapping drivers on a long journey is not very realistic is it? If they were two colleagues then the business that links them should be damned sure that proper cover exists, should it not? Alternatively, even if we are just talking two friends on a trip to the seaside, then taking a car that is worth insuring on a Comprehensive basis by its owner ... why might it become worth a gamble when the second driver takes over and causes the cover to become Third Party Only at best? ... it doesn't make sense, does it?

Nope, I say again, DIY interpretation of DOC extensions is a complete false economy, may easily result in illegal motoring, and is quite definitely not a MoneySavingExpert idea.

When I was advising my insurance clients on behalf of an excellent insurer I always advised them to let me give them all the cover they could possibly need and then we'd negotiate down the price based on how much they'd actually be likely to use the more exotic extras.

I never lost a customer, and no customer of mine ever had cause to complain about a lack of cover when they needed help.

I appreciate that buying good insurance is much more difficult now (I struggle sometimes myself to sort the good from the bad), but one thing is true - you are far more likely now to find yourself outside your insurer's ideas of what's covered than you would ever have been at any other time in my 30 years of knowing something about it. So don't gamble. You always wear a seatbelt now, no matter how short your trip? Well my tip is to make sure you have belt and braces insurance also, and unless you are an expert, then you really ought to speak to the one that decides in your case. If they say you're covered and for no additional charge, then that's just great (get them to confirm in writing while you are on a roll).

advantix

OCDOCD wrote: »

Do you have some form of trader's policy?

Nope, just a standard Fully Comp insurance for my car