J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

My motor policy says,

The Policyholder may also drive with the owners permission a motor car car not owned by the policyholder under a hire purchase or annual leasing agreement.

I have occasion to drive another car, whilst mine is off the road I have borrowed a Peugeot 106 off the sister in law as it was surplus on the provision I sell it when I am done, she said she would leave the insurance running until I sold it.

I checked with my insurers and they says its for emergency use only which differs from what the policy says, it does not mention emergency and I understtod the certificate as saying I could drive anything I wasnt paying for as long as the owner agreed but it only covered me for third party risks, therefore the owner of the car would not get a penny if I crashed it but whoever I hit would get paid out.

I work for the Police so I need to be all above board but feel that the policy is misleading in that they say its only in 'emergency' situations, who defines what an emergency is, to some people its life threatening blood loss, too others its having less than twenty **** left.

Can anybody clarify this as I do drive other cars occasionally and cant afford a 'driving without insurance' prosecution.

For instance

Driving my father in law home in his car as he has had a drink.

Driving a freind to the airport in their car and taking it back to their house.

moving a car for somebody, say to take it for MOT or to a garage.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Also, this time I have paid the few quid extra premium as it will be a few weeks but its so vague and confusing, its time they either take it off of clarify it !

Dazza01

Same as what 99% of every other policy states, i've driven family/friends cars around quite a few times and had no problems with insurance but it's only a stop gap, if you intend to use the vehicle on a regular basis it's easier to swop your insurance to that car, but also let them know you are not the registered keeper.
Plus the fact should sh!te happen and you have an accident driving on the above would render u liable to pay for the damage caused to your sis in laws car as your on 3rd party, where as if you swopped your insurance over ur fully covered, assuming ur F/C that is

The Chief

I wouldn't worry mate half of the coppers i know are not insured on their cars
so f**k 'em.

Seriously though mate just read every bit of small print that you can.
you will find that you will be insured but only third party.
i would not worry too much as long as you dont buy a 950 pop fiesta insuring it and then buying a Scoob putting it in someone elses name and roaring around in it!! insurance company might not take too kindly too that.

I fit says you can drive other peoples vehicle then you can so dont worry.

GC8

J4CKO: it isnt uncommon for insurers to try to put their own spin on the policy's definition. Irrespective of what your insurer tells you; you are insured for whatever the policy states and the only limits are on the policy.

I have had a similar issue with contents insurance with the policy issuer attempting to add further definitions along the lines of: "what we take it to mean is..." followed by a contradiction of the policy/contract. I wouldnt be too worried if I were you.

Simon

hades

In most cases, the only stated exception to "driving other cars 3rd party" is cars you own yourself (be it under HP, lease or fully paid for)

The only other issue is that insurance company may have asked when taking out your policy "do you or any of the covered have other vehicles in your household?" or "do you or any of the covered have access to other vehicles?". If you can be shown to have falsely answered that question "no", they may have a case. I think they'd struggle to prove you borrowing a car for a week or two consitutes providing false information.