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

advantix

peterbaker wrote: »

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.

Nowhere did i say i plan to "play out the same scenario regularly". In fact i have only used it once when a mate brought a car and he had no insurance to drive it home, so i drove it for him. (And i did ring my insurance company first who told me that i needn't ring them everytime i wanted to do something like that as i was covered automatically on my policy!)

(And BTW, my insurance certificate actually says, and i quote: "The persons named on this insurance document may also drive any vehicle not owned, hired or rented by them, providing they hold or are not banned from holding a valid licence to do so, whether or not there is any insurance inforce on the vehicle" - I would say that gives you your answer!)

Nowhere have i condoned using the DOC extension for any regular driving (That is just stupid!)

I actually insure and drive a 1.9 tdi Scenic (although i fail to see what that has to do with anything here!) and would NEVER drive any porshe as i think they are total crap!

I am 38 (although, again, i fail to see the relvance of this?)

Having been a policeman i think i know what sort of challenges the police / DVLA would thow up and i would like to think i also know how to drive my (or any other car) legally.

lisyloo

It was originally intended for this to be used as an emergency feature.

Thanks for the info.
Personally I think that insurers should be MUCH clearer on this if it is for this purpose only.

I would use it occassionally for swapping drivers on a long journey or asking someone to drive my car (cos I'm sick) or test drivinng a car for private sale.

No intention to defraud but they don't say in their policy docs that it's for emergencies only.

Makes me mad and if oney and time was no object I'd love to do a test case in court on it because a layperson should expect to be able to "driver other cars" as it states in the documentation (I am excluding the cases of obvious fraud).

lisyloo

Thanks for your views and time pete.

The example given of swapping drivers on a long journey is not very realistic is it?

Why ever not? I do fairly long journeys with colleagues.
If I picked up a colleague and had a headache I'd ask them to drive.
Doesn't happen all the time, but it's not far fetched.

If they were two colleagues then the business that links them should be damned sure that proper cover exists, should it not?

My company states that if you choose to drive your own car (rather than a hire car) then it is your responsibility for ensuring insurance is in place.
They do have liability insurance for negligence but I wouldn't expect them to check everyone's insurance (or licence, or MOT, tax, or roadworthiness of vehicles).
Are you suggesting that employers should do all this?

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?

err...I have my car covered third party only.
(It's 17 years old and done 133K miles).
I do take it to the airport or on long weekeds away (and swap drivers with my husband - in this case a named drive but just example of realistic swapping) and I do take it on 4 hour business travel with colleagues.

Nope, I say again, DIY interpretation of DOC extensions is a complete false economy

In my case I suspect there is no economy (and certainly no intention).
I expect that adding my 39 year old colleague with 20 year driving licence and full no claims would cost next to nothing (in fact in some cases in can reduce the premium).

So don't gamble

Thanks for your advice and time.
I'm just quite surprised this isn't explained better.
I'm not a stupid person, in fact I'm quite intelligent but I would obviously have interpreted this wrongly so I think it's very unclear on the part of insurers.

lisyloo

And BTW, my insurance certificate actually says, and i quote: "The persons named on this insurance document may also drive any vehicle not owned, hired or rented by them, providing they hold or are not banned from holding a valid licence to do so, whether or not there is any insurance inforce on the vehicle"

Have to say that I very much agree with advantix.
If this is what it says on your policy then you expect to be able to use it (not for driving porsches or driving something on a regular basis).

I would love to see a test case on this as I think that legally they would have a hard time getting out of it in a genuine case.

vikingaero

Direct Line were one of the companies that trotted out the mantra that use the DOC extension then the other vehicle needs insurance in place. However as I am bored and have too much time on my hands :rolleyes: I decided to read their Policy Document on pdf. Who says I don't lead an exciting existence?

The interesting bit is this:

1b Driving other cars
If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy provides the
same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other motor car
as long as you do not own it and it is not hired to you under a
hire-purchase or leasing agreement. This cover only applies if:
• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim;
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car;
• the car is registered in and being driven in Great Britain, Northern
Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel
Islands; and
• you still have your car and it has not been damaged beyond
cost-effective repair.
If you drive another car under this section, there is no cover
for damage, fire or theft to the car you are driving.

darich

vikingaero wrote: »

The interesting bit is this:

1b Driving other cars
If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy provides the
same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other motor car
as long as you do not own it and it is not hired to you under a
hire-purchase or leasing agreement. This cover only applies if:
• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim;

The above only means that you can only claim for the repair or compensation for the damage once ie on one policy. It doesn't state that the car must be insured for DOC extension to be valid.
in other words if you're driving my car and have an accident, then your insurance should pay out and i'm not allowed to claim again on my own policy.

Rikki

darich wrote: »

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.

This is what I was thinking too.

lisyloo

The above only means that you can only claim for the repair or compensation for the damage once ie on one policy.

I think it means that if there is other insurance in place then THAT insurance has to pay i.e. this is a fall back.
There would of course only be cover if the person was a named drive on that car or it was "any driver".

It's a bit like having proper travel insurance and then a freebie one on your credit card.
The credit card one is a fallback and will only pay out if there was nothing else in place.

darich

lisyloo wrote: »

I think it means that if there is other insurance in place then THAT insurance has to pay i.e. this is a fall back.
There would of course only be cover if the person was a named drive on that car or it was "any driver".

It's a bit like having proper travel insurance and then a freebie one on your credit card.
The credit card one is a fallback and will only pay out if there was nothing else in place.

You may be right.

In any case the answer to the OP's question is that DOC cover is not sufficient for insuring a car in it's own right.
It's also worth remembering that the DOC is only valid while the car is being driven by someone. When the person who borrowed the car is not driving it, then it is uninsured

peterbaker

advantix is an ex policeman ... used to being authoratative no doubt, but not an expert in insurance law.

If you are using your vehicle to travel for reasons linked to your employers business and they let you make up your own mind about doing that, then you are already in a minefield.

Am I suggesting that all employers should check their employee's motor insurance before the employee is authorised by the employer to drive their own vehicle on company business? Absolutely. Damn right I am saying it. Am I surprised that in 2007 people think otherwise? Nope, because we live in a chancer's society. Your employer is obviously a chancer as they think it is now socially acceptable to abdicate insurance responsibility for part of their business activity to you and to place your colleagues in a position where they might struggle to obtain compensation if you injured them. I am also guilty: I am part of the same chancing society in my own in cherry-picked ways. For example, from time to time if I am late I chance speeding between road cameras because I know that the chances of ever seeing a police car other than perhaps meeting one coming the other way on the wrong side of the road on a training exercise on my 300 mile round trip this weeked are close to zero and because I also know that having an accident whilst speeding doesn't invalidate my insurance, and overall because I know that there will be nothing the slightest bit remarkable about me driving at 80 or 90 on the motorway in this day, this age and this country.

However, I would not use my car to ferry colleagues to a business meeting, especially if a colleague was expecting to take over the driving at some stage relying on their DOC. Watch the insurers wriggle if you get that wrong. To concentrate your mind, think about the worst case scenario - your colleague drives down the side of a motorway embankment and derails and Intercity train. Who pays? Who wriggles?

I say again, if you speak to your insurer, get their confirmation in writing. You'll be surprised how few will back up their throwaway words on the phone with something clearly accepting the exact risk you phoned about in writing. Even those that do agree to write are more likely to merely confirm the wording that applies and not interpret it for you, nor confirm that they accept what you called about...

I fully agree that it should be much clearer. It used to be so, but now insurers mess with wordings so much to try to manipulate claims costs without alerting customers to defects in cover that it is extremely difficult to compare one product with another. That doesn't stop comparison sites suggesting that they have somehow managed it, however :rolleyes:


BTW Credit card travel insurance is not a fall back for a proper travel policy - in 2007, all credit card insurance is a joke! A proper travel policy is a fall back if your credit card insurance fails (as it commonly does for all sorts of reasons).