Not covered for commuting

jsj25 · 16 February 2019 at 11:58PM

Hi all,

A few days ago a named driver on my policy was involved in a minor non-fault incident. There was very minor damage to my car, but so far the third party (whose car wasn't damaged at all) has been refusing to answer calls/reply to e-mails, so there's no chance of settling privately.

I've notified my insurance company who have said that they're happy to pursue the claim with her insurers, and have accepted that my named driver was not at fault. However, since notifying them, I've taken a closer look at my policy and can see that it only covers social, domestic and pleasure journeys for all named drivers. The problem is that my named driver was actually travelling to work at the time, and according to my policy documents only myself, as the policyholder, has business journeys covered.

This was absolutely an oversight on our part. The named driver has only recently started using the vehicle to drive to work (and only twice a week at that), but I accept that we should have updated the policy when this started. When we spoke to the insurers we made it clear that the incident happened during a commute, and there was no indication at the time that this would be an issue. However, naturally I'm now concerned that this is a claim that is not technically covered by my policy and that they could turn around and try to bill us for the hire car, repair, etc. when it could be done much more cheaply by my local garage.

My named driver actually has her own separate insurance policy which, to my understanding, entitles her to drive other cars not specifically named on her policy. The wording is poor, but this is what it states and my understanding is that business travel is included in this (as it's also included for her named vehicle) - please correct if wrong!:

"[Driver] may also drive with the owners permission a motor car that is not owned by or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to, them, their business partner or their employer, or is being kept or used in connection with their or their employer's business."

Rather than wait for my insurers to notice that my claim isn't covered as part of the terms of use, I'm going to notify them that I'd like to cancel the claim and pay for the repair out of my own pocket. What I want to know is, is there any risk of punishment here? My named driver wasn't insured to commute on my policy, but I believe was covered as part of her own. Basically, I just want to check that they're not going to turn around and say my policy is invalid or anything for what was a genuine oversight. :shocked:

Apologies for being long-winded, but I'd be grateful if anyone with more knowledge about this than me could shed any light.

Aretnap · 17 February 2019 at 8:19AM

Are you sure that your named drive isn't covered for commuting? It's common for business use to be restricted to policyholder only, but I was under the impression that the norm was for commuting, or lack of it, to apply equally to all drivers. What's the actual wording on the policy?

If the accident was the fault of the other driver (and this is not in dispute) then your/your driver's own insurance status is irrelevant. You could have no insurance whatsoever and the at fault driver, or his insurer, would still have to pay for the damage he caused to your car. Obviously if the other side dispute your driver's version of events things could get a little more complicated. Were there any witnesses, or does the damage itself show who was liable (eg if it was a rear end shunt)?

If your named driver's own policy includes commuting cover than this will also be included in the driving other cars section, which means that she would have had the legal minimum insurance to commute in your car, meaning there is no risk of being prosecuted for driving without insurance. This would be on a third party only basis though, meaning it would not cover any damage or repairs to your car.

jsj25 · 17 February 2019 at 10:02AM

Thanks so much for the helpful reply, Aretnap. My policy covers:

Use of social, domestic and pleasure purposes
Use by the Policyholder in connection with the businesses of the policyholder

So it does look like a journey to work by a named driver isn't covered by my policy. (Even if commuting itself were covered, as my named driver works at multiple sites then I suspect she would need business cover, though admittedly there's no way of them discovering that she wasn't travelling to a fixed place of work..)

My car was rear ended in stationary traffic whilst queuing to leave a large roundabout. The damage to my reverse light was only spotted after details had been exchanged and both drivers had left the scene, so there are no contactable witnesses. However, my MOT was done only a couple of weeks ago so it's hard to see how she could argue the toss - unless she's going to say that my named driver reversed towards a busy roundabout and into her in stationary traffic.

My named driver is confident that her insurance covers business use for any other car, but it's just her policy wording that has left me a little confused. Here's what it states:

1. Description of Vehicle:
Registration mark [named driver's car]
Any motor vehicle supplied to the policyholder under an agreement between the insurer and a repairer or hire company while the vehicle identified above by its registration mark is unavailable as a direct result of an event covered by this policy. - So, this doesn't specifically mention third-party cars. However...

5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:
[Driver]
Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.
[Driver] may also drive with the owner's permission a motor car that is not owned by or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to, them, their business partner or their employer, or is being kept or used on connection with their or their employer's business. - Like I said, the wording is poor, but I believe this is confirming what she says, ie. that she is legally entitled to drive another car for business purposes.

It also states:

If paragraph 5 above allows a driver to drive a car not belonging to them or hired by them, the cover for that car will be limited to Section 1 of the policy - Liability to others. They will not be covered for any loss or damage to the car they are driving.

Ultimately, all I care about is that my named driver was not driving illegally at the time of the insurance, which she doesn't appear to have been doing. TBH, she's not bothered about the other driver's insurance fronting the cost - the damage is so minor that she's said she'd be willing to go to a garage and pay for them to repair it, just to get this settled.

I'll give my insurers a a call either way. If they are happy to proceed with the claim on the basis that the other driver was at fault, knowing full well that my named driver's journey at the time isn't covered by the policy, that's fine with me. But if there's any risk of them retrospectively billing any hire cars/repairs to us then TBH we'll just settle it ourselves.

Quentin · 17 February 2019 at 10:19AM

Your other (and best!) option is to cancel the claim with your own insurer.

Forget about the possibility of your named driver driving uninsured at this stage - cross that bridge if and when that arises

Now pursue your claim against the responsible third party's insurer

Contact them and see if they have an innocent third party claims department who will deal with your repairs and provide a replacement vehicle if needed

MisterP123 · 17 February 2019 at 10:41AM

Who are you insured with? It says nothing strictly about commuting in what you've quoted? Just social, domestic, pleasure and business. Right?

Vehicle use is usually, social only, social & commuting or social, commuting and business.

"Business" use is not the same as commuting and, as you've found out, does not generally cover named drivers.

If it is such a minor repair, is it worth the excess and hassle of going through insurers?

Quentin · 17 February 2019 at 10:48AM

MisterP123 wrote: »

If it is such a minor repair, is it worth the excess and hassle of going through insurers?

When you are put to expense as a result of someone else's neglect as the OP has then there is no excess to pay if you claim directly against the liable third party

In this instance the OP has already notified his insurer so the incident is now on his record and has to be disclosed to other insurers he approaches for quotes in the future so there is no point not pursuing the third party to pay for his repairs

elsien · 17 February 2019 at 10:55AM

I do think it's worth checking because I've just had this debate with parents insurance company to be added as a named driver. The standard policy wouid cover me for commuting but not for full business cover - they declined to add that on.

MisterP123 · 17 February 2019 at 10:55AM

Quentin wrote: »

When you are put to expense as a result of someone else's neglect as the OP has then there is no excess to pay if you claim directly against the liable third party

In this instance the OP has already notified his insurer so the incident is now on his record and has to be disclosed to other insurers he approaches for quotes in the future so there is no point not pursuing the third party to pay for his repairs

Whilst I agree, the OP is bricking it about a possible fraudulent claim. So..... Is it worth it?

jsj25 · 17 February 2019 at 11:08AM

Quentin wrote: »

Your other (and best!) option is to cancel the claim with your own insurer.

Forget about the possibility of your named driver driving uninsured at this stage - cross that bridge if and when that arises

Now pursue your claim against the responsible third party's insurer

Contact them and see if they have an innocent third party claims department who will deal with your repairs and provide a replacement vehicle if needed

Very frustratingly, as there did not appear to be any damage to the bumper at the scene of the accident, my named driver inexplicably didn't think it necessary to get the other driver's insurance details, thinking that just a name, number and licence plate would suffice. Other driver is now refusing to reply to e-mails/answer calls now that we've notified them is a minor repair to be carried out. Might give them one last try to volunteer this information/settle privately. Failing this, I believe this site allows you to search for other drivers' insurance details for a nominal fee. I'm guessing that's all kosher?

MisterP123 wrote: »

Who are you insured with? It says nothing strictly about commuting in what you've quoted? Just social, domestic, pleasure and business. Right?

Vehicle use is usually, social only, social & commuting or social, commuting and business.

"Business" use is not the same as commuting and, as you've found out, does not generally cover named drivers.

If it is such a minor repair, is it worth the excess and hassle of going through insurers?

Quentin wrote: »

When you are put to expense as a result of someone else's neglect as the OP has then there is no excess to pay if you claim directly against the liable third party

In this instance the OP has already notified his insurer so the incident is now on his record and has to be disclosed to other insurers he approaches for quotes in the future so there is no point not pursuing the third party to pay for his repairs

The named driver has said they're willing to pay for the repair out of their own pocket just so this can be sorted. I'm on Quentin's side here and am of the opinion that if a third party is at fault then they should pay, full stop. It just looks like, on this particular occasion, given that business use is not covered for named drivers on my insurance, my only real option is to find out the third party's insurers and approach them directly.

The accident has been disclosed and my insurers have said that, as it's a non-fault incident that happened to a named driver, if I drop them from my policy when looking for quotes then for all intents and purposes it will be like it never happened.

uk1 · 17 February 2019 at 11:24AM

Traveling to and from work is not "business travel". There are normally two distinct phrases used in connection with this cover. One is "for business purposes" and the other "to and from one's normal place of work". With social and domestic only use I can quite see an insurer refusing cover for "business purposes" ie for travel from one's place of work to say a customer or from home to a customer but they may not intend the cover to simply exclude traveling to and from work. Techincally you have not started work until you arrive at work, not when you leave home. You are not therefore working or on your employers business. No one is being paid for the time taken traveling from home too work. etc etc. It is more "social and domestic" and not "business" travel and I question whether it should be presumed to be anything different.

As you have already decided that you are willing to pay, and as this is clearly a genuine misunderstanding (if it is, which I question, as I think there is a decent chance that this is covered) why not tell your insurer that you are fully aware that the insurance doesn't cover business cover related to an employers work but ask whether this other driver is simply covered for the journey from home to work. I'd say that there is a better than 50/50 chance you might be covered and you might be worried uneccessarily..

Good luck.

sevenhills · 17 February 2019 at 11:50AM

uk1 wrote: »

Traveling to and from work is not "business travel". There are normally two distinct phrases used in connection with this cover. One is "for business purposes" and the other "to and from one's normal place of work". With social and domestic only use I can quite see an insurer refusing cover for "business purposes" ie for travel from one's place of work to say a customer or from home to a customer but they may not intend the cover to simply exclude traveling to and from work. Techincally you have not started work until you arrive at work, not when you leave home. You are not therefore working or on your employers business. No one is being paid for the time taken traveling from home too work. etc etc. It is more "social and domestic" and not "business" travel and I question whether it should be presumed to be anything different.

I feel policies are set out to be confusing, so the companies can confuse people.
Bussiness insurance should cover someone for travelling to a bussiness.

Not covered for commuting

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free