Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
Insured or not insured…that is the question!
Buddha:
--- Quote ---But it's not the car that is insured whilst you are driving it under third party insurance...it's you. i.e. you are insured but the car is not.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---No, they will ask for proof that the driver is insured, not the owner.
--- End quote ---
This is exactly the point; if the owner of a vehicle allows their vehicle to be driven by another person knowing that in the event of an accident they will not be able to recover the loss of the vehicle, so be it. BUT, where a driver has a policy with an insurer, that insurer MAY extend 3rd party cover to any vehicle they may drive,
This is an arrangement between you and your insurer. It's a perk, something to set them apart from their competitors (possibly).
Bottom line is, it's been exploited in the past and insurers generally are tightening their rules on this. There's nothing in legislation that says the other vehicle MUST have a policy in effect, but there MAY be in your policy documents (if you're covered DOC at all).
It's something I've taken advantage of in the past, and all the time that some insurers offewr this benefit, I will not give my business to one who doesn't.
SteveGoodz:
--- Quote from: "BadgersRover" ---Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles? As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.
--- End quote ---
That's not strictly true. It's the law that is legally binding ... and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence in court.
SteveGoodz:
Ignoring all the posts above, Jeep94 committed an offence taking the vehicle to the grassy knoll in the first place ~ unless he carried it there, of course :D
Yoshi:
--- Quote from: "SteveGoodz" ---
--- Quote from: "BadgersRover" ---Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles? As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.
--- End quote ---
That's not strictly true. It's the law that is legally binding ... and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence in court.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but those documents are supposed to be in accordance with the law, so therefore it wouldnt be ignorance of the law as you would quite rightly trust that the insurance company, governed by said laws, would have the documents in accordance with the law.
As it stands currently there is no real evidence for either side of the argument. As previously stated the NFU have said that both sides are right, once to L9000K and once to me. I remember last time this argument came up that our regular serving officers werent too sure on this one (even though boggert has stated something).
To the serving police officers on here, when you pull a vehicle and ask for documents, the insurance is for the driver to be able to drive the vehicle. Am i correct in assuming that (its been a while since i was pulled over). As stated in the insurance documents the only exemptions from the DOC entitlement on the certificate are "not owned or hired to under a hire purchase agreement". Surely if there was a part about insurance then it would say the vehicle must be insured as well??
It is a legal loophole, and one which should quite rightly be closed or clarified.
BigSi:
--- Quote from: "SteveGoodz" ---Ignoring all the posts above, Jeep94 committed an offence taking the vehicle to the grassy knoll in the first place ~ unless he carried it there, of course :D
--- End quote ---
Before the Boys in Blue come around, the Jeep is still at home! I was only asking the question to see if I could park it there in the first place! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version