1. Home
  2. UK Finance Discussions
  3. Insurance cover while driving other vehicles

Insurance cover while driving other vehicles

According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, the Norwich Union Insurance company is to remove the long standing clause from its comprehensive private motor insurance policies which states that "the policyholder may also drive a motor car or motor cycle not belonging to him and not hired to him under a hire purchase agreement provided always that he holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.". The cover extended under this provision was normally only the very basic required to satisfy the Road Traffic Act. The clause has been in private car comprehensive policies for at least 60 years and probably longer. It was very useful for emergencies and its removal, in my view, is a retrograde step. For example, a mother whose child takes ill in the night and whose car is broken down will no longer be able to borrow her neighbour's car to take him to the doctor's.

Norwich Union claims it is removing the clause because it facilitates scams, allowing for example, a youngster to drive a high powered high speed vehicle for which he would not be able to obtain insurance cover in his own name.

It is expected that other insurers will follow suit.

A spokesman for the Norwich Union is quoted as saying that the company would take a "considerate" view of anyone with fully comprehensive insurance who had to drive another car in an emergency --- and hoped the police would do the same. Somehow, I cannot see the police taking a lenient view as they are bound to enforce the letter of the law and strictly the person in these circumstance would be driving without insurance. It would be fairer, in my view, if the insurers offered the clause on a case by case basis rather than a blanket no - no.

Reply to
Alasdair Baxter
Loading thread data ...

What many people don't realise about this clause is that it only applies if the 'other' vehicle is insured. You can't use this clause to cover you if you drive a totally uninsured car.

I found this out a few years ago after having driven my son's (totally uninsured at the time) car home for him. Fortunately I didn't find out the hard way. Many people I have mentioned this to since are very suprised about this (and argue the point quite strongly) but if you phone your insurance company or broker and ask you will find it's true.

Reply to
usenet

They did it oh at least a year ago, since then the clause says something like it covers you for driving courtesy cars while yours is being repaired.

Reply to
fishman

Really, I am surprised and I'm going to argue the point. Surely it's what it says in the policy booklet and the schedule/certificate that matters, not what the broker says.

If someone gives you permission to drive their car (so that you can use this clause in your insurance) how are you expected to check that his insurance in valid other than by seeing that it has a current tax disk?

What I hadn't realised until recently is that it only applies to the policyholder, not to other named drivers on the same policy.

Robert

Reply to
Robert

Exactly. If the policy or schedule doesn't explicitly restrict the "other car" clause in this way, then it isn't restricted in this way.

But you might have to wade through an awful lot of fine print before you can satisfy yourself that such explicit restriction isn't there.

I suppose the purpose of such restriction could be to prevent people from getting "free" insurance for their second/third etc cars, by simply having them owned by non-driver friends who give them permanent permission to drive them.

Well, you could ask to see their insurance certificate. :-)

A current tax disk is no evidence that insurance cover is in place, other than on the first day of the disk's validity.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

I've not had a policy yet that hasn't excluded under 25s from driving other cars which I assume is for this reasons. Perhaps it would be more sensible to just exclude you driving things in higher insurance groups.

Reply to
alfi286

I had quite a long discussion/argument with a broker about this but didn't get anywhere.

I think you're supposed to ask them!

Oh absolutely, it always says "The policyholder may also ..."

Reply to
usenet

I used to find it useful to have the car insurance policy in joint names, so both were covered.

.
Reply to
rob

[]

Indeed - I've always understood this to mean that you were covered (TPO) whilst *driving* the other car - as soon as you park it - and, say, the handbrake fails or it gets stolen it reverts to the owners insurance.

A friend & his wife had two motorcycles on two policies and had an interesting discussion with an underwriter about the 'other vehicles' clause along the lines of: "So I'm covered TP whilst /riding/ the bike, but not for theft once I've parked it?" "How about I park it, lock and phone my wife and tell her?" "How about if I ride, it, park it, and she watches me lock it? "OK, so the *only* way we're covered for theft, if we swap bikes for a day, is if we each lock our *own* bikes when we park up for fish&chips?" etc, etc....

FWIW, in the bike world, I've seen that clause only apply when your bike is >500cc, and you're >25 YO.

rgds, Alan

Reply to
Alan Frame

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.