Robinmaster's Thread of Insurance Nonsense

[Tamworthbay]

Query on term of main user, if two people drive a car, one uses it four or five days a week but only covers 2000 miles a year, the other uses the car every other weekend and for holidays but covers 4000 miles a year. Who would the insurance count as the main user? I have always assumed it is determined by number of miles covered but would welcome a second opinion.

[JayW]

I'm not suggesting anyone is above the law, I don't know where you're getting that from. I get the vibe you think I am looking for a 'loophole' i can exploit to drive uninsured or something. Back in the day i used to use this clause a lot to drive round in other folk's cars without giving a fig about thier own insurance situation, but I havent bothered with that for years because of this vagueness.

 

If this is a 'work in progress' as you say, what is the 'before' situation, what is the 'after' and where is it written down? I would have thought that, if my 3rd party cover is valid on someone elses's car ONLY if there is another policy on that car somewhere, that my insurers would make that clear? Its pretty important. Why does it not say it anywhere if thats the legal position?

I'm simply trying to assert that your point is moot.

 

The entire question is irrelevant as to whether yours, my or anyone else's insurance does or doesn't say your covered.

 

The simple FACT is that any vehicle on the public highway, whether driven or not, must be insured in its own right. Doesn't matter who owns/drives it.

 

I'm like you, I used to use my own policy to drive whatever I liked. I could insure a fiesta and drive an XR4i in the wife's name. This is exactly the reason the law was changed (well, that and all the eastern Europeans using pool-cars).

 

I just dont see the purpose of a question when the answer is already clear.

[Slartibartfast]

Question: if I'm driving someone else's car on my policy third party only, and the car is insured on a standard policy by the owner, would the owner be able to claim on his insurance for damage to the car in the event of an accident?

[Pillock]

I think this whole "does it need to be insured elsewhere" business is now dealt with by the idea that if a car is not SORN, then it must have an insurance policy in force specifically for that car, and if it's being driven on the road by anyone it can't be SORN. I assume trade plate drivers are above this, they must be able to drive a SORNed car else what's the point of a trade plate? And they'll doubtless have special super-expensive insurance.

 

Still, it's clearly meant to confuse people enough that they just give up and buy some day insurance when they're not convinced it's needed, but the threat of a copper being equally unsure and just bailing your car anyroads is looming.

 

I'm still not 100% sure of what I just said, it sort of makes sense but if you've got a bit of paper in your hand from your insurer relating to your car, and it says "This geezer can also drive another car and be insured on it" with no mention of other insurance, doesn't that mean that the second car is in fact "insured" when you're in charge of it? FUCK ALL THIS, BASTARDS.

 

And I really don't buy this "It's being rolled out gradually to certificates" since every certificate I've ever had has been written in equally obtuse, yet completely different language - there's no standard phrases they use.

[robinmasters]

Dear RobinMasters,

I have a question.

Some time back I was getting a quote and the broker / insurer was trying to upsell, some extras including personal accident cover for all my passengers, for which they wanted some £40.

 

Now I attempted to point out, that in the unlikely event that I crashed, and it was my fault, they could sue me for their injuries, as they are third parties.

 

The twat on the phone told me that was definitely not the case because they were inside my car.

 

I feel this person was lying. If I could remember who it was and how long ago, and the exact time and date of the phone call, I'd make a pointless complaint, and get his career in Insurance terminated, so he could only ever work as a letting agent, or social worker.

 

You're right, they were wrong. Two parties are involved in the contract of insurance (you and the insurance company), anyone else is a third party. Personal accident cover is often included within a standard motor policy, and usually covers the people insured by the policy (and others if you pay extra as they tried to sell to you) against specific, serious injuries. If you suffer one of the small number of injuries specified by the policy, usually things like lost limbs, eyes etc, you get paid a fixed amount by your own insurer, regardless of who's fault the accident was. 

 

Question: if I'm driving someone else's car on my policy third party only, and the car is insured on a standard policy by the owner, would the owner be able to claim on his insurance for damage to the car in the event of an accident?

 

No. 

[John F]

Robin, what's the deal with the tile incident I mentioned on the previous page, i.e. a tile falls off my roof onto my own (SORNed but insured) car & my house insurance provider refuses to cover the damage.

 

Were they allowed to do that?

[Guest Hooli]

I think this whole "does it need to be insured elsewhere" business is now dealt with by the idea that if a car is not SORN, then it must have an insurance policy in force specifically for that car, and if it's being driven on the road by anyone it can't be SORN. I assume trade plate drivers are above this, they must be able to drive a SORNed car else what's the point of a trade plate? And they'll doubtless have special super-expensive insurance.

 

Still, it's clearly meant to confuse people enough that they just give up and buy some day insurance when they're not convinced it's needed, but the threat of a copper being equally unsure and just bailing your car anyroads is looming.

 

I'm still not 100% sure of what I just said, it sort of makes sense but if you've got a bit of paper in your hand from your insurer relating to your car, and it says "This geezer can also drive another car and be insured on it" with no mention of other insurance, doesn't that mean that the second car is in fact "insured" when you're in charge of it? FUCK ALL THIS, BASTARDS.

 

And I really don't buy this "It's being rolled out gradually to certificates" since every certificate I've ever had has been written in equally obtuse, yet completely different language - there's no standard phrases they use.

 

You are correct.

 

I've been to court over this & driving a car not in your name with just Driving Other Cars cover and no other insurance on the car is legal.

 

It can only be too/from a pre-booked MOT due to tax laws, but it doesn't make it illegal insurance wise.

[Urko]

Robin, what's the deal with the tile incident I mentioned on the previous page, i.e. a tile falls off my roof onto my own (SORNed but insured) car & my house insurance provider refuses to cover the damage.

 

Were they allowed to do that?

I'm not him, but I did used to work in insurance.

 

I think the insurer was correct. The home insurance covers replacing the tiles that were damaged by storm. There isn't any cover for damage done to your car by the tiles - except in the rare case that another person was affected and could otherwise sue you for negligence.

 

Why would you expect to claim on your home insurance?

 

If you wanted an insurance against you car being damaged by flying tiles,you needed comp cover on the car - although whether it would be worth claiming is a different story.

[robinmasters]

Robin, what's the deal with the tile incident I mentioned on the previous page, i.e. a tile falls off my roof onto my own (SORNed but insured) car & my house insurance provider refuses to cover the damage.

 

Were they allowed to do that?

Yes.

 

Look at it this way; the insurance is there to fund what you'd have to pay if someone took you to Court. If your neighbour's tile fell into your car, you'd sue them. If the Court found that your neighbour hadn't maintained their roof properly, they'd have to pay for the damage to your car. You'd have to prove that your neighbour had in some way been negligent in how they'd looked after their roof-and this needs to be reasonable-no-one climbs up on their roof to inspect every tile every weekend. Unless you can prove your neighbour knew their roof was damaged and had done nothing, you'd probably lose.

 

In your case, your roof damaged your car. If you went to Court, you'd be suing yourself-obviously you can't do this.

[robinmasters]

I may regret this, but I am resurrecting this thread.

 

I have worked for many years in insurance claims, mainly motor claims, so have a broad understanding of what they do and why they do it. I was very good at not paying people, but to do that you have to understand what they are entitled to.

 

I'm no breadvan, but I may* be able to provide some useful advice.

[Talbot]

This is an excellent thread. Insurance is the one aspect of car ownership that really boils my piss. The amount of misinformation, outright lies and general deciet from *some* insurers (actually, usually the broker) is staggering, so some inside knowledge and understanding is a good thing.

 

I'm trying to insure the Xantia at the moment and the quotes I am getting are ridiculous. In the 25 years I have been driving I have had one claim (absolutely the other person' fault, and over 20 years ago) and one windscreen claim over 10 years ago. I must be one of the lowest risk drivers out there and I would expect insurers to be welcoming of my custom. Evidently not! Do they just pluck figures out of the sky? How can a 1.9td Xantia be more expensive to insure than a 3.0td Mercedesbarge?

[AMC Rebel]

Premiums aren’t solely based on a risk calculation for a start. Companies decide what business they are after and may even be offering effectively a loss leader. They may be after Mr Mercedes for the hope of cross-selling other financial products.

 

Also once a car gets rarer, like Xantia but not hugely valuable, it’s hard to source repair parts.

 

Just two of many reasons

[somewhatfoolish]

I'm no breadvan, but I may* be able to provide some useful advice.

Unless you're conducting your actuarial gymnastics in the caribbean, you're definitely not like Breadvan; as reported in the "other place" he's slumming it in one of the hotter and sweatier bits of the commonwealth.