RobSheffield Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 hoping someone more knowledgeable than i can help when you use the fully comprehensive cover clause to drive 'any other vehicle not owned by you or leased under a hire purchase agreement' does the vehicle have to be insured in its own right by the legal owner? so, i drive your car, does it have to be insured by you? or, if say you bought a car, didnt insure it, could i drive it using my fully comp clause? im 99% sure i cant as i work in a dealership...but im just wondering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absz Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 hoping someone more knowledgeable than i can help so, i drive your car, does it have to be insured by you? theres your answer. yes it does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 hmm..thought so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPRALOOPY Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 hoping someone more knowledgeable than i can help so, i drive your car, does it have to be insured by you? theres your answer. yes it does you being yourself or the owner of the car?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Usually your insurance will only cover you third party to drive any other car - (stops you from getting into a Ferrari for a thrash!). The other car must also be insured as it won't be covered if it gets knicked whilst you park it for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absz Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 you being yourself or the owner of the car?? you can drive a car not owed by you, if you have fully comp insurance. but the catch is that it only covers you for third party. and that car MUST have a valid insurance cover. (i.e by its owner.) hope that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 The other car must also be insured as it won't be covered if it gets knicked whilst you park it for example. right, so, from a third party on the road basis, does the other car have to bei insured, as in does im only thinking of someone running into me, not of my fault accident, or theft or fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pick up the latest copy of Auto Express - there is an interesting article on this that seems to suggest that the other vehicle doesn't have to be insured by anyone else, I always thought it was the opposite but apparently not. They are currently trying to bring in a ruling to change this to how we all think it already is! The article theme is a young lad insuring a Fiesta but driving a 355, it compares the premiums between the two, obviously most of the companies won't quote him on the Ferrari but he's still legal to drive it on his Fiesta policy despite it not being insured elsewhere. If the police pull him all he needs to prove is that *his* policy covers him to drive it at that time. Food for thought..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 thanks Mcanny - very interesting......certainly not the situation i had thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 if you're less than 25 then you can't drive any other cars 3rd party....that's what Elephant told me anyway..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absz Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Pick up the latest copy of Auto Express - there is an interesting article on this that seems to suggest that the other vehicle doesn't have to be insured by anyone else, I always thought it was the opposite but apparently not. They are currently trying to bring in a ruling to change this to how we all think it already is! The article theme is a young lad insuring a Fiesta but driving a 355, it compares the premiums between the two, obviously most of the companies won't quote him on the Ferrari but he's still legal to drive it on his Fiesta policy despite it not being insured elsewhere. If the police pull him all he needs to prove is that *his* policy covers him to drive it at that time. Food for thought..... the reason why i say that the other car has to be insured is because a work mate of mine was done in court for no insurance as the car he was driving did not have a policy, making his cover invalid. :thumbdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.