Am i insured to drive another car for a few hours ?

sheslookinhot

chrisw said:

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

531063 said:

nottsphil said:

etienneg said:

You are definitely NOT covered by insurance, as the owner (deceased's wife) does not have insurance on this vehicle (first bullet point requirement in your screenshot). This is a quite typical requirement.

It may be typical, but that line doesn't rule out the OP driving it. To me, it is simply the insurer declining to insure something that is already covered by somebody else. That is also a typical strategy of an insurance company!

Any DOV policy I have had, requires the vehicle you intend to drive to be insured

There's no such requirement with Direct Line.

Direct Line will not cover damage, fire or theft if you are driving another car than that covered by your  policy.

That's the same as all policies under driving other vehicles. You would have to get extended insurance if you wanted full coverage for the 'other' vehicle..

Ok so not quite the same as “there is no such requirement with Direct Line”. 

Effectively, the other car needs to be insured. Either by the owner/policy holder or by you as the driver.

TooManyPoints

Effectively, the other car needs to be insured.

The other car needs to be insured anyway, to comply with s144A of the RTA. The only exception is if it is SORN - and in that case it cannot be driven.

Of course the driver cannot fall foul of s144A because that offence can only be committed by the RK.

unforeseen

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

531063 said:

nottsphil said:

etienneg said:

You are definitely NOT covered by insurance, as the owner (deceased's wife) does not have insurance on this vehicle (first bullet point requirement in your screenshot). This is a quite typical requirement.

It may be typical, but that line doesn't rule out the OP driving it. To me, it is simply the insurer declining to insure something that is already covered by somebody else. That is also a typical strategy of an insurance company!

Any DOV policy I have had, requires the vehicle you intend to drive to be insured

There's no such requirement with Direct Line.

Direct Line will not cover damage, fire or theft if you are driving another car than that covered by your  policy.

That's the same as all policies under driving other vehicles. You would have to get extended insurance if you wanted full coverage for the 'other' vehicle..

Ok so not quite the same as “there is no such requirement with Direct Line”. 

Effectively, the other car needs to be insured. Either by the owner/policy holder or by you as the driver.

Incorrect. This topic came up a few years ago. At that time I was with LV. I have an email from them that states that the vehicle that DOC is used for does NOT need to be insured under another policy. The requirement under the Rta is a problem for the registered keeper and not the driver

sheslookinhot

unforeseen said:

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

531063 said:

nottsphil said:

etienneg said:

You are definitely NOT covered by insurance, as the owner (deceased's wife) does not have insurance on this vehicle (first bullet point requirement in your screenshot). This is a quite typical requirement.

It may be typical, but that line doesn't rule out the OP driving it. To me, it is simply the insurer declining to insure something that is already covered by somebody else. That is also a typical strategy of an insurance company!

Any DOV policy I have had, requires the vehicle you intend to drive to be insured

There's no such requirement with Direct Line.

Direct Line will not cover damage, fire or theft if you are driving another car than that covered by your  policy.

That's the same as all policies under driving other vehicles. You would have to get extended insurance if you wanted full coverage for the 'other' vehicle..

Ok so not quite the same as “there is no such requirement with Direct Line”. 

Effectively, the other car needs to be insured. Either by the owner/policy holder or by you as the driver.

Incorrect. This topic came up a few years ago. At that time I was with LV. I have an email from them that states that the vehicle that DOC is used for does NOT need to be insured under another policy. The requirement under the Rta is a problem for the registered keeper and not the driver

It’s not incorrect. Have you checked Direct Line policy booklet ? Anyway, I’m out.

chrisw

Asheslookinhot said:

unforeseen said:

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

sheslookinhot said:

chrisw said:

531063 said:

nottsphil said:

etienneg said:

You are definitely NOT covered by insurance, as the owner (deceased's wife) does not have insurance on this vehicle (first bullet point requirement in your screenshot). This is a quite typical requirement.

It may be typical, but that line doesn't rule out the OP driving it. To me, it is simply the insurer declining to insure something that is already covered by somebody else. That is also a typical strategy of an insurance company!

Any DOV policy I have had, requires the vehicle you intend to drive to be insured

There's no such requirement with Direct Line.

Direct Line will not cover damage, fire or theft if you are driving another car than that covered by your  policy.

That's the same as all policies under driving other vehicles. You would have to get extended insurance if you wanted full coverage for the 'other' vehicle..

Ok so not quite the same as “there is no such requirement with Direct Line”. 

Effectively, the other car needs to be insured. Either by the owner/policy holder or by you as the driver.

Incorrect. This topic came up a few years ago. At that time I was with LV. I have an email from them that states that the vehicle that DOC is used for does NOT need to be insured under another policy. The requirement under the Rta is a problem for the registered keeper and not the driver

Have you checked Direct Line policy booklet ? Anyway, I’m out.

Yes. You clearly haven't.