Not sure if this is a silly question or not.

I have had several requests from garages recently to put their loan cars on my insurance for the day. From a very thin knowledge of legal case history, I thougt that whilst insurers will cheerfully take premiums for anything, you cannot actually claim if you damage the car as it is not your asset? The case study I remember involved a leased property, insured by the tenant, that burned down. The insurers refused to pay out (and won their case) as the tenant did not own the building - they got their premium back.

Also, If I am loaned a £20k car for the day and write it off, who gets the benefit of the £20k payout? I have never been asked for details of the owner of the car when I insure it and always read the disclaimer form when (rarely) asked to sign one. They never make reference to anything other than being responsible for the insurance. Even if the insurance did pay out, I am not sure where the garage would stand in terms of their rights to the money - presumably they would have to threaten to sue if you were difficult about it.

So, when in a loan car am I effectively just third party (even though I have told my insurer) or fully comp that means something?

Gordo

 

This is getting more and more common as insurance prices go up.

The 2 occasions where I've been in a similar situation to this, my insurance has been covering the 3rd party aspect (where my insurance says I'm covered to drive a vehicle not owned by me with the owners permission) and their insurance simply covers the repairs/theft.

I have since stopped using the dealer that operates on this sytem.

 

Don't know, the only time I had a loan car I had to tell my insurance everything about it, including the owner.

 

You don't need to own something to insure it - you just need to be potentially liable for whatever you're insuring it against (so you have what is known as "insurable interest").

If the dealer lending you the car says he wants you to insure it, it's because he intends holding youu liable for any damage. So you'd be able to get cover.

 

Sorry to contradict you GM, but I once tried to insure myself for someone else's car and most places won't even give you a quote. Apparently insurers assume you will not drive the car as carefully as if you owned it. Load of guff, but that's the reason they gave me.

 

Thanks for the replies - it feels like GM is right (i.e. you ought to be able to insure something you are liable for) but is clearly different from property legislation where the owner has to insure the land & buildings (god knows what happens towards the end of leaseholds etc but irrelevant here).

I guess insurers will not necessarily want to insure you for someone else's car because of the deemed risk.

I still feel this is a whole grey area, however, and potentially a mine field if you ever did damage a loan car. A friend who works for a BMW dealership tells me they refuse to insure customers as they have a £5000 excess on their group policy. Not sure why I as a customer should put up with the grief of insuring it for them, however!

G

 

Jerome - being legally able to insure something and actually being able to get cover ain't the same thing

Gordo - on the property front, it would depend on the terms of the lease. If that says its the tenants duty to insure the property, then that is what would be allowed. However if the lease says that it is the owners responsibility then a policy taken out by the tenant would be void (he says having had a lease where the tenant had to insure the property in front of him this morning )