# Strange insurance question



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

Hi All,

This is one to satisfy my own mind.

So a friend/family member has just bought a Focus ST. 

So he's saying, he has his car insured for him only, meaning that people who have their own insurance and are covered 3rd party to drive other vehicles cannot.

He says he is still entitled to drive other vehicles 3rd party though.

He says by insuring it this way, he gets it a bit cheaper.

I understand the need for him to maybe tell his girlfriend and 'mates' this to stop them maybe asking him for a go. (Just want to add here he never said this to me because I asked for a drive, I haven't and don't want to, this came up in a conversion with the in-laws).

It's just I used to be a car salesman and have had quite a few different cars with different insurance companies and I have never heard of this?

If normally when I drive a car 3rd party, it comes off my insurance if anything happens, so I don't see how this helps at all?

Cheers all, just want to mythbuster this.


----------



## steveo3002 (Jan 30, 2006)

if someone elses policy says they can drive another car with the owners permission then yes they could drive his car 

being that theyre 3rd party if this other driver rolls the car over into a ditch then the owner gets nothing , so yeah maybe its more a hint of no you cant have a wizz up the road in it


----------



## Clancy (Jul 21, 2013)

Yeah I have heard if this before, not that someone has asked for it or that it makes anything cheaper though 

A friend if mine has and EVO 6 and their insurance states that no other driver under any circumstances is covered to drive that car, even drivers on 3rd party through their own insurance etc can't remember the exact wording


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

steveo3002 said:


> if someone elses policy says they can drive another car with the owners permission then yes they could drive his car
> 
> being that theyre 3rd party if this other driver rolls the car over into a ditch then the owner gets nothing , so yeah maybe its more a hint of no you cant have a wizz up the road in it


That's what I was thinking..... but then you read this from Clancy?



Clancy said:


> Yeah I have heard if this before, not that someone has asked for it or that it makes anything cheaper though
> 
> A friend if mine has and EVO 6 and their insurance states that no other driver under any circumstances is covered to drive that car, even drivers on 3rd party through their own insurance etc can't remember the exact wording


How does this help unless it is a tactic for 'performance' cars in order to avoid 'friend/mates' crashes etc...


----------



## Leebo310 (Sep 30, 2013)

Starbuck88 said:


> That's what I was thinking..... but then you read this from Clancy?
> 
> How does this help unless it is a tactic for 'performance' cars in order to avoid 'friend/mates' crashes etc...


My guess is it reduces the risk at the insurance company as they know who will (or should...) be driving the car.


----------



## SBM (Jul 4, 2013)

Leebo310 said:


> My guess is it reduces the risk at the insurance company as they know who will (or should...) be driving the car.


Also if they make that statement in the policy - they are within their rights to refuse payout should the worse happen. This would mean it's down to the "other" driver's own insurance, and if its 3rd party only, they may have reason not to pay out dependent on who is deemed to be at fault.

In short if the sentence is in your policy and you accept it - you have to bide by it.


----------



## Clancy (Jul 21, 2013)

Starbuck88 said:


> That's what I was thinking..... but then you read this from Clancy?
> 
> How does this help unless it is a tactic for 'performance' cars in order to avoid 'friend/mates' crashes etc...


I think it is exactly that mate, to avoid just anyone driving a performance car. Because on a normal policy an 18 year old fully comp or whatever could get in his 500bhp EVO which is a pretty bad idea lol so I suppose it's to avoid that

it's probably only some insurance companies that do it to reduce their risk etc, it's not something you hear of on a regular basis but I can guarantee it does happen sometimes


----------



## Sicskate (Oct 3, 2012)

Sounds like your mate doesn't want you driving his car...


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

If someone with third party cover from their own insurance for vehicle A drives the car B then it's nothing to do with the insurer for vehicle B. The insurer for vehicle A would pay out in the event of an accident in vehicle B, however they would only pay out to third parties. There would be no cover for vehicle B as it's third party only.

Personally I think someone is misreading or misinterpreting it (including Clancy). There would have to be exemptions for someone to drive it who is repairing or servicing it at least. If you can copy the wording on here from the policy document it will clear things up.

I don't think it's a term of the policy that the policy becomes void if anyone other than the policyholder drives it. I.e. someone not named on the policy drive it in February under their own insurance. In September the policyholder has an accident but insurer finds out someone else drove it in February so refuses to pay out. I don't think that's what this means (which seems to be what the OP is alluding to).

If I have a contract with my insurer saying they'll cover me TPO to drive other cars with the owners permission that legally can't be voided or overruled by the insurer of the other vehicle.

Since it's TPO cover it wouldn't cover damage to the actual vehicle anyway so it's a moot point. I'm calling BS on this but will happily change my mind if someone shows me something in writing.


----------



## Clancy (Jul 21, 2013)

My friend I mentioned has a trade policy as he owns a garage has loads of cars, out of the lot that is the only one mentioned in the policy saying only he can drive it 

I'll text him later see if he can send me the wording of it. Might be wrong, but I remember the convocation we had when he started the policy 

Pretty sure I've seen it on road wars before too, someone driving his bosses car on his insurance but turned out the bosses car states no one else can drive it. But then again half the cops on road wars don't know what their on about with car stuff lol


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Nanoman said:


> If someone with third party cover from their own insurance for vehicle A drives the car B then it's nothing to do with the insurer for vehicle B. The insurer for vehicle A would pay out in the event of an accident in vehicle B, however they would only pay out to third parties. There would be no cover for vehicle B as it's third party only.
> 
> Personally I think someone is misreading or misinterpreting it (including Clancy). There would have to be exemptions for someone to drive it who is repairing or servicing it at least. If you can copy the wording on here from the policy document it will clear things up.
> 
> I don't think it's a term of the policy that the policy becomes void if anyone other than the policyholder drives it. I.e. someone not named on the policy drive it in February under their own insurance. In September the policyholder has an accident but insurer finds out someone else drove it in February so refuses to pay out. I don't think that's what this means (which seems to be what the OP is alluding to).


Unfortunately it isn't as simple as that these days. If it turns out that vehicle A doesn't have DOC cover, vehicle B insurers may end up picking up the costs as they are the Insurer under the MID, even though their policy isn't covering the driver. They may well then exercise their right of recovery from the policyholder and try to get their outlay back.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that some insurers are offering a discount on high performance policies if they declare that nobody else will drive the vehicle under DOC, as it eliminates the potenial exposures of them being liable on a contingent basis.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

Shiny said:


> Unfortunately it isn't as simple as that these days. If it turns out that vehicle A doesn't have DOC cover, vehicle B insurers may end up picking up the costs as they are the Insurer under the MID, even though their policy isn't covering the driver. They may well then exercise their right of recovery from the policyholder and try to get their outlay back.
> 
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that some insurers are offering a discount on high performance policies if they declare that nobody else will drive the vehicle under DOC, as it eliminates the potenial exposures of them being liable on a contingent basis.


Again, that's moot if the person does have DOC cover which is what we're talking about.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Yeah, without a doubt, if A does have valid DOC then it has nothing to do with Insurer B, although in theory, Insurer B could get funny if they are advised of an incident as the policyholder has broken the T&Cs he agreed to by letting someone with DOC drive.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

It would be interesting to see the terms of a policy that has this clause.


----------



## Starbuck88 (Nov 12, 2013)

I'll see if I can get a snippet of the wording from him.

Just to clarify, I didn't want to or even ask to drive his focus. It just came up as he'd only just bought it and we were talking about different insurers!


----------



## Harry_p (Mar 18, 2015)

Clancy said:


> My friend I mentioned has a trade policy as he owns a garage has loads of cars, out of the lot that is the only one mentioned in the policy saying only he can drive it
> 
> I'll text him later see if he can send me the wording of it. Might be wrong, but I remember the convocation we had when he started the policy
> 
> Pretty sure I've seen it on road wars before too, someone driving his bosses car on his insurance but turned out the bosses car states no one else can drive it. But then again half the cops on road wars don't know what their on about with car stuff lol


Trade policies are different because they cover the person not the car, and a car needs a current policy in place before someone with ' drive any other vehicle' can also drive it and be covered under their own third party insurance.

If your insurance States that you can drive any car not belonging to or loaned to you under a hire purchase agreement, that car also needs to already have an insurance policy in place. You cannot just get in an drive an otherwise uninsured vehicle.

It wouldn't surprise me if some multi car or collectors cars policies worked in the same way, in that the car is insured while the policyholder is driving it, but the car itself is not insured.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Harry_p said:


> You cannot just get in an drive an otherwise uninsured vehicle.


Well technically...

Although motor insurers are increasingly adding to their policy wordings that DOC will only apply if the vehicle is insured elsewhere. Not all though.

I think there will become a day when DOC is removed from all policies, it causes too many potential problems with the MID.


----------



## Daffy (Dec 15, 2005)

Your DOC says that you have to have owners permission so if you drove under DOC and the owner has declared nobody else driving it then the insurer of the vehicle could null and void the owners policy and register this meaning your next premium would be sky high if anyone would touch it. Also your DOC if you crashed his car could be invalidated as the owner could not give you permission as he was 'contractually' not able to and therefore other parties and police could come after you both.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

Daffy said:


> Your DOC says that you have to have owners permission so if you drove under DOC and the owner has declared nobody else driving it then the insurer of the vehicle could null and void the owners policy and register this meaning your next premium would be sky high if anyone would touch it. Also your DOC if you crashed his car could be invalidated as the owner could not give you permission as he was 'contractually' not able to and therefore other parties and police could come after you both.


if the owner has given you permission even though he has declared no one else will drive it the risk is his not yours. he has broke his terms and his contract - you haven't broken the law or any contract.


----------

