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

FlameCloud

real1314 wrote: »

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

Try Googling the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Amended, specifically the Motor Vehicles (Compulsery Insurance) Regulations 2007)

It will bascially force the insurer of the vehicle to pay for any third party damage-

1. For death/injury up to an unlimited amount
2. Loss/damage to property £1,000,000
3. Claiments costs and expenses handling of claims
4. Charges for any emergeancy medical treatment arising out of use of the vehicle.

Insurers cannot avoid any of these using policy wording.

movilogo

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.

I work for a multinational company. Here if two of us go to a same place for business reason, each of us get a separate hire car provided by the company. However, if we insist that we want to share a car, then car is issued to one person's name and another person is then added to hire policy for allowing him to drive.

We are not permitted to use our own cars to attend business meeting unless we can prove that we have business cover (not just commuting) in our insurance.

real1314

FlameCloud wrote: »

Try Googling the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Amended, specifically the Motor Vehicles (Compulsery Insurance) Regulations 2007)
.

Read that amendment - it just changes the financial limits. Which clause specifically states that a parked vehicle that is not being driven must be insured?

Don't just quote RTA 1988, 'cos that's not what I asked. Find an actual clause within the act if you want people to accept what you say.

raskazz

real1314 wrote: »

Read that amendment - it just changes the financial limits. Which clause specifically states that a parked vehicle that is not being driven must be insured?

Don't just quote RTA 1988, 'cos that's not what I asked. Find an actual clause within the act if you want people to accept what you say.

s.143 of the RTA, as a vehicle parked in the road is being 'used' in the terms of the Act. Also see the judgement in Elliott v Grey. It states that even a vehicle parked up with the battery removed is being 'used' in the road and thus has to be insured or secured against third-party liabilities.

FlameCloud

real1314 wrote: »

Read that amendment - it just changes the financial limits. Which clause specifically states that a parked vehicle that is not being driven must be insured?

Don't just quote RTA 1988, 'cos that's not what I asked. Find an actual clause within the act if you want people to accept what you say.

Is Raskazzs answer good enough for you or would you like it pointed out in more detail?

real1314

raskazz wrote: »

s.143 of the RTA, as a vehicle parked in the road is being 'used' in the terms of the Act. Also see the judgement in Elliott v Grey. It states that even a vehicle parked up with the battery removed is being 'used' in the road and thus has to be insured or secured against third-party liabilities.

143: a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

All the clauses refer to an insurance policy for the use by the person. A policy held by the vehicle owner would not cover this, so the implication is that DOC would cover alone. The owners insurance or lack of would not be relevant.

However the case law that seems to have been established in the case quoted (and in pumbien vs vines) would seem to rule this defence out. Just have to park up on someone's drive instead or a private car park?

FlameCloud

No, because the vehicle could for example set on fire, causing damage to third party property-who would pay for it then?

As soon as you step out of the vehicle, DOC ceases and the vehicle is uninsured.

raskazz

real1314 wrote: »

All the clauses refer to an insurance policy for the use by the person. A policy held by the vehicle owner would not cover this, so the implication is that DOC would cover alone. The owners insurance or lack of would not be relevant.

No, as I mentioned 'use' under the Act includes simply being parked on the road. Whilst the vehicle is parked unattended it is the owner of the vehicle who is 'using' it, regardless of who was driving it last. So any RTA liabilities in the example given earlier would be incurred by the policy inforce in relation to the vehicle, not the 'driving other cars' policy. If there was no valid policy inforce in relation to the vehicle then any claims would fall under the scope of the MIB's Agreements.

FlameCloud is right.