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

lisyloo

However, I would not use my car to ferry colleagues to a business meeting

So if 2 of your were going the same way, you'd drive in seperate cars?
I think most employers would have a problem with that as an abuse of the expenses system (40p per mile) and would feel you were beingoverly finnicky about the insurance.

If your worried about the insurance wouldn't it be easier to check your colleagues insurance rather than drive 200 miles?

especially if a colleague was expecting to take over the driving at some stage relying on their DOC

Why not.
We've seen wording that categorically states that insurers would cover this (assuming it's ok for business use).
Are you telling us that insurers will not keep the their legal obligations of clearly stated cover in the policy.

If that is what you are saying then offer my thanks for your warning, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable or that they would win if challenged in court.
We have a contract with insurance companies and they can't just wriggle out of contracts when they feel like it.
I appreciate that court cases are costing and risky but I'm jsut pointing out that insurers cannot jsut unilaterally decide not to pay out if you've used the cover as stated. A contract is a legal document both ways.

advantix

peterbaker wrote: »

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

I never claimed to be an expert in anything!

peterbaker wrote: »

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?

The drivers (note, the DRIVER not the OWNER) insurance policy would pay out surely as, by law, a minimum insurance cover is applied (ie third party) which would cover all claims except for the claims to the actual car the driver was driving?

lisyloo

Who wriggles?

I would fully expect an insurer to try to wriggle in a case (like the Gary Hart one) where 30 million pounds was at stake.
Clearly they would put their best legal brains on it.

But lets say I fell over and got concussed and casualty told me not to drive under any cirucmstances or I had an onset of migraine and was feeling very nauseous then a colleague may HAVE to drive (it would be clearly negligent not to).
If it's out of hours and they have DOC cover then I would expect the drivers insurance to pay simply because there's a legal contract in place for it.

If they don't I can say with 100% certainty that they won't get 30 million from me however hard they try but they might get some seriously bad publicicty.

Saeed

Why don't you simply look at the policy document. It says you have 3rd party cover when driving another vehicle, it doesn't say it has to be insured. Therefore you are insured when driving another car. The problem is what happens when it is parked?? My view is that the person in charge of the vehicle is still responsbile. So if that means I am driving someone elses car and I park it up then I am responsible for it. Say I left the handbrake off and it rolled down a hill. Why should the owner be responsible for my negligence. Did they know I was not going to put the handbrake on? Did I tell them I was not going to put the handbrake on? No!

darich

Saeed wrote: »

Why don't you simply look at the policy document. It says you have 3rd party cover when driving another vehicle, it doesn't say it has to be insured. Therefore you are insured when driving another car. The problem is what happens when it is parked?? My view is that the person in charge of the vehicle is still responsbile. So if that means I am driving someone elses car and I park it up then I am responsible for it. Say I left the handbrake off and it rolled down a hill. Why should the owner be responsible for my negligence. Did they know I was not going to put the handbrake on? Did I tell them I was not going to put the handbrake on? No!

If the car is not being driven under the DOC extension then it is the responsibility of the car owner to ensure there is valid insurance in place.
In your scenario the owner of the vehicle would be liable since te vehicle was on a public road without valid isurance. If you then wanted to recover your costs or your insurance company's costs then yo'd have to sue whoever parked the car.
Whether that would be feasible is another story.

If it's your car and i forget to put te handbrake on and it damages property by rolling down a hill then it would be your insurance who would be required to pay out. If yo had no valid cover then you could expect a call from the police and lawyers of whose property your uninsured vehicle damaged.

SKIPPY

Just to put another spanner in the works I know I'm going a little off line here and correct me if I'm wrong but if you insure your car for social, domestic and pleasure including commuting doesn't it normally say to your permanent place of work? Therefore if you are travelling to a business meeting somewhere should you not have business insurance on your car?

FlameCloud

Saeed wrote: »

Why should the owner be responsible for my negligence. Did they know I was not going to put the handbrake on? Did I tell them I was not going to put the handbrake on? No!

Aside from the obvious answer of 'thats what the law says?'

darich

SKIPPY wrote: »

Just to put another spanner in the works I know I'm going a little off line here and correct me if I'm wrong but if you insure your car for social, domestic and pleasure including commuting doesn't it normally say to your permanent place of work? Therefore if you are travelling to a business meeting somewhere should you not have business insurance on your car?

You've answered your own question - it's a business meeting and you're travelling for business so yes you need business cover.
I asked my company this a while back - what if I was attending a course that wasn't my everyday place of work and without business use on my policy I wouldn't be covered. Nor would I be able to claim any expenses since I have to sign a decalration that my car has suitbal insurance in place.

real1314

Peterbaker, do insurance customers need to be experts in insurance law to take out a policy?

If someone's insurance policy offers DOC, without specifying that it can only be used in certain, vague situations, and doesn't specify that the car would need it's own insurance; how would the driver's insurance company wriggle out of the DOC clause?

For one thing, if a firend had a car that was insured 3rd party only, how would their insurance have any effect if I was driving it and crashed into a 3rd party?
If I was using this firends car twice a week whilst using my own car 5 times a week, how would DOC be invalidated?

I think you are simply taking a "cautious" approach, but are not actually basing your comments on the relevant facts relating to actual insurance policies.
I may have a duty to disclose relevant facts (or do I?), but how can I know what is relevant? Mainly by taking note of the questions I am asked when taking out insurance. They don't ask if I own a cat or dog, so I don't declare that.
They tell me I can drive another car on 3rd party only, so why would I need to declare which car I might drive? If there was a restriction to the type of car, the policy would say so.

I think advantix was talking a lot more sense when looking at actual facts and policies.

real1314

FlameCloud wrote: »

Aside from the obvious answer of 'thats what the law says?'

But saeed committed the negligent act that causes the accident - he did not park the car, according to the law, as to park a car you must engage the handbrake. Ergo saeed committed a road traffic offence that casued an accident.

Saeed's insurance is repsonsible, as he did not effectively cease driving the car. Much like if he bailed out at 10 mph and let the car crash into someone else.

Just saying "the law says" doesn't mean it's true, unless perhaps you can find that actual clause and link it?