[Angel-owl]

Just wondered if anyone knew if it was possible to have 2 car insurance policies on one car?

The situation is this:
I have got fully comp insurance on my car with virgin money. My brother wants to borrow my car but virgin wont insure him as he is under 21. His car is not roadworthy at the moment so i want to know if it is possible for him to transfer his car insurance policy (which is 3rd party, fire and theft) onto my car for a few days whilst i have currently got insurance on it? (if that makes sense!)

So basically, if some thing was to happen, would either of the policies be void? Would he be insured?
I need to know asap so would really appreciate any replies!

Thanks

Hi adele18

You cannot have the same vehicle insured by two different insurance companies. Whilst appreciating that your existing insurer will not allow your brother to be added onto your policy, you will ultimately need an insurance policy where your brother will be allowed as an additional driver.

[Rebel MC]

Originally Posted by virgin_mary

Hi adele18

You cannot have the same vehicle insured by two different insurance companies. Whilst appreciating that your existing insurer will not allow your brother to be added onto your policy, you will ultimately need an insurance policy where your brother will be allowed as an additional driver.

That's not entirely true.

I'm insured TPF&T on my own car, but I'm also insured to drive any car that doesn't belong to me, with the owners permission, but TP only.

So, if the OPs Brother's insurance company will agree to insure him for a few days on her car, it can be done; then it's up to her if she wants to trust him that it wont catch fire, get stolen or he has an accident which is his fault..

[seacam]

Originally Posted by Rebel MC

That's not entirely true.

I'm insured TPF&T on my own car, but I'm also insured to drive any car that doesn't belong to me, with the owners permission, but TP only.

So, if the OPs Brother's insurance company will agree to insure him for a few days on her car, it can be done; then it's up to her if she wants to trust him that it wont catch fire, get stolen or he has an accident which is his fault..

Hello Rebel,

I disagree but have learned something.

I didn't realize if you had TPF&T you could drive some one else's vehicle and be insured, I thought that only applied if you your self had fully comp.

The fact you have TPF&T or Comp' for that matter, does not insure you to drive someone else's vehicle with their permission, unless they too are insured to drive that vehicle.

No insurance company I know will insure a car under the circumstances the OP has set.

The simplest thing to do if the OP can is to add her brothers name to her policy.

You can not have 2 insurance policy on the same car.

[Rebel MC]

Originally Posted by seacam

Hello Rebel,

I disagree but have learned something.

I didn't realize if you had TPF&T you could drive some one else's vehicle and be insured, I thought that only applied if you your self had fully comp.

The fact you have TPF&T or Comp' for that matter, does not insure you to drive someone else's vehicle with their permission, unless they too are insured to drive that vehicle.

No insurance company I know will insure a car under the circumstances the OP has set.

The simplest thing to do if the OP can is to add her brothers name to her policy.

You can not have 2 insurance policy on the same car.

It depends on the T&Cs of the policy you have in place.

I don't insure my daily drivers FC, because the value of the car would render it a write off in any accident, so I just insure myself against fire, theft, or third party claim; if the accident was my fault, the third party would still be paid out, and I would lose a few hundred quid, certainly not enough to be worrying about.

But it is perfectly possible to arrange the same facility that an FC customer enjoys, ie to be insured to drive a car that they don't own, with the owners permission.

To say that you can't have two insurance policies in place on the same vehicle at any one time is a blatent untruth; how do car dealerships have insurance policies in place on loan or demo cars, but then require customers to get their own insurance?

The question is, who makes the claim when something goes wrong, the owner or the driver?

[seacam]

Hello Rebel,

[quote=Rebel MC;23349312]It depends on the T&Cs of the policy you have in place.

I don't insure my daily drivers FC, because the value of the car would render it a write off in any accident, so I just insure myself against fire, theft, or third party claim; if the accident was my fault, the third party would still be paid out, and I would lose a few hundred quid, certainly not enough to be worrying about.

I understand that, I did not know that was possible unless you were fully comp'.

None the less, even with permission of a vehicle owner and you with your own insurance in place, you can not drive a vehicle without the vehicle owner having insurance in place as well.

Digressing a tad, if say your vehicle is 2lt and you are insured, if the other vehicle is say 2.5 lt and the owner has insurance and give you permission to drive their vehicle, you won't be insured.

But it is perfectly possible to arrange the same facility that an FC customer enjoys, ie to be insured to drive a car that they don't own, with the owners permission.

It's possible to arrange anything I guess but it's not usual practice and I think you would be hard put to find an insurance company that would quote. ( EDIT I'm writing about private insurance here not hire or commercial).

To say that you can't have two insurance policies in place on the same vehicle at any one time is a blatant untruth;

It's neither blatant or untruthful, we may believe different things.

What would happen is one insurance policy would be in force, the other wouldn't so it's not two insurance policies on the same vehicle.

-----how do car dealerships have insurance policies in place on loan or demo cars, but then require customers to get their own insurance?

You are talking about trade plates, it maybe those insurance companies require a slightly wider criteria, even then to the best of my knowledge the car driver going on a test run must have insurance in place and the person who has the trade plate must be with them.

To drive our company vehicles not all our drivers have their own insurance or private vehicles but we have a commercial multi driver policy and the drivers must meet certain criteria, in other words not be prevented in getting insurance in their own right if they had to.

The question is, who makes the claim when something goes wrong, the owner or the driver.

It would be by who evers insurance policy was in force at the time of what ever went wrong did.

Hi Rebel MC

I had a relative temporarily added to my insurance policy because it was not possible for him to arrange, under the terms of his own insurance policy, to drive our vehicle. We consulted with our respective insurance companies and were advised, for the same reasons, that the procedure is to add anyone who has to drive your vehicle to your own insurance policy. The only exception is motor vehicle dealerships and garages; your vehicle is covered under the terms of their insurance when they work on your vehicle and if they have to road test it, but that is for an entirely different reason to the OP's.

[FearFactor]

I have been in this position, and a "normal" insurance company (i.e. not trade insurance) will not allow you to ensure the car twice.

My car was off the road and I wanted to use my Mum's for a few days. My insurance would not allow me to change my policy on to her car, as it was already insured by her insurance company - thus would be double insured. The only way round this is either to add your brother to your policy (which you say you can't do), or take you car off of your own policy, and have it added on to your brother's.

fF

[Keefy-boy]

Originally Posted by seacam

None the less, even with permission of a vehicle owner and you with your own insurance in place, you can not drive a vehicle without the vehicle owner having insurance in place as well.

Digressing a tad, if say your vehicle is 2lt and you are insured, if the other vehicle is say 2.5 lt and the owner has insurance and give you permission to drive their vehicle, you won't be insured

have to take issue with both these statements.

i've never heard of the requirement for the owner to have insurance in place for the third-party cover on a fully comp policy to be in force. the conditions on my own policy (Admiral) which are pretty standard state:

'The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence.'

That is the is the full extent of the conditions copied vebatim. There is no mention of a requirement for the vehicle to be elsewhere insured by the owner, either on the insurance certificate or in the policy schedule or on their website and in my experience this wording is pretty much industry-standard.

And as for the second statement, are you saying that the third party cover won't apply if the car you wish to drive has a bigger engine than your own? again, i've never heard of that, never seen it in writing on any motor insurance certificate or motor policy schedule.

[Keefy-boy]

Originally Posted by seacam

-----how do car dealerships have insurance policies in place on loan or demo cars, but then require customers to get their own insurance?

You are talking about trade plates, it maybe those insurance companies require a slightly wider criteria, even then to the best of my knowledge the car driver going on a test run must have insurance in place and the person who has the trade plate must be with them..

trade plates are nothing to do with insurance. they allow a motor trader to use a vehicle that is temporarily theirs on the road without registering or taxing it.

[FearFactor]

Originally Posted by Keefy-boy

have to take issue with both these statements.

i've never heard of the requirement for the owner to have insurance in place for the third-party cover on a fully comp policy to be in force. the conditions on my own policy (Admiral) which are pretty standard state:

'The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence.'

That is the is the full extent of the conditions copied vebatim. There is no mention of a requirement for the vehicle to be elsewhere insured by the owner, either on the insurance certificate or in the policy schedule or on their website and in my experience this wording is pretty much industry-standard.
And as for the second statement, are you saying that the third party cover won't apply if the car you wish to drive has a bigger engine than your own? again, i've never heard of that, never seen it in writing on any motor insurance certificate or motor policy schedule.

I can't speak for anyone else's policy, but the policies I have had with Diamond, Sheila's Wheels, Halifax and Quinn Direct all require the car you are "borrowing" to be already insured by the owner in order for your FC policy to cover you 3P on that vehicle.

This is one of the reasons that my OH and I have trade cover (apart from for occaisional trading) - because you can't borrow someone else's car and be covered by your own policy unless the vehicle is already insured.

If it was the general industry standard you'd have all the boy racers out there getting FC cover on a little 1.0 Fiesta and then using the same policy to drive round in faster "boy-racer" type cars. Would basically mean that anyone could drive any car as long as they had some type of car insurance policy.

fF

[seacam]

Hello Keefy,

Originally Posted by Keefy-boy

have to take issue with both these statements.

i've never heard of the requirement for the owner to have insurance in place for the third-party cover on a fully comp policy to be in force. the conditions on my own policy (Admiral) which are pretty standard state:

'The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence.'

That is the is the full extent of the conditions copied vebatim. There is no mention of a requirement for the vehicle to be elsewhere insured by the owner, either on the insurance certificate or in the policy schedule or on their website and in my experience this wording is pretty much industry-standard.

I have just spoken to five insurance companies, Admiral, Churchill, AA, RAC and More Then and finally Motor Insurance Burro.

Admiral require that insurance is in place by the owner of another vehicle before you can drive it under your insurance.

Come on Keefy you know better then to quote what it says on an insurance document, basically if don't say it ain't.

Churchill said yes I could but the moment I got out of the car it was illegal parked.

AA and the RAC said the same as Admiral, there had to be insurance in place on the other vehicle the MIB said the same.

What the MIB also advised was I could add the other car to my insurance, that is a common practice where you might buy a car say but still use your old vehicle for a few days before disposing of it.

And as for the second statement, are you saying that the third party cover won't apply if the car you wish to drive has a bigger engine than your own? again, i've never heard of that, never seen it in writing on any motor insurance certificate or motor policy schedule.

That is my understanding, yes, let me qualify it.

If the above is correct and the insurance you hold is to drive a 1600cc vehicle and the other insured car is 2500cc and you drive the 2.5, in the event of an accident, a third party would be insured but you would be done for no insurance.

[Hypnodisc]

Originally Posted by virgin_mary

Hi adele18

You cannot have the same vehicle insured by two different insurance companies.

Um, you can.

My mum had fully comp on her Corsa for about 2 months, with 2 completely different insurance companies - and she was the named driver on both.

The newer company was offering a really good deal on learner drivers so me and my sister could go much more easily on that insurance.

[seacam]

Originally Posted by Keefy-boy

trade plates are nothing to do with insurance. they allow a motor trader to use a vehicle that is temporarily theirs on the road without registering or taxing it.

Thank you I knew this, I was recounting my own experience, when I have been for a test drive with a brand new vehicle there has been a trade plate in the car, I thought it had something to with insurance as well, I live and learn.

[seacam]

Originally Posted by Hypnodisc

Um, you can.

My mum had fully comp on her Corsa for about 2 months, with 2 completely different insurance companies - and she was the named driver on both.

The newer company was offering a really good deal on learner drivers so me and my sister could go much more easily on that insurance.

Yes Hypno, your Mum might well have been a named driver on two policys but only one policy, the new one, was in force on the vehicle, that was what Virgin was agreeing with with me.

I wonder, hypothetically speaking, assuming a vehicle were doubly insured - where one insurance policy insures someone, while the other policy insures their relative - what would happen, were an accident, caused by whoever was driving the vehicle at the time did not stop. I imagine it would present something of a nightmare for the third party as to whose insurance company to pursue, especially if either of the two insured drivers of the vehicle refused to accept their involvement in the accident. This is one example, but there must be countless others to illustrate why it is impractical for a vehicle to be doubly insured.

[Keefy-boy]

Originally Posted by seacam

Hello Keefy,


I have just spoken to five insurance companies, Admiral, Churchill, AA, RAC and More Then and finally Motor Insurance Burro.

Admiral require that insurance is in place by the owner of another vehicle before you can drive it under your insurance..

you are indeed correct and it is i who is wrong i've just spoken to Admiral too. apparently the rules were changed by their underwriters in December 2007 - after i renewed my policy (in my defence up to then i was correct and have never been notified of any change in the conditions) and they could not tell me why this fundamental change was not notified to exisiting policy holders and they will be getting back to me today.

[seacam]

Originally Posted by Keefy-boy

you are indeed correct and it is i who is wrong i've just spoken to Admiral too. apparently the rules were changed by their underwriters in December 2007 - after i renewed my policy and (up to then i was correct and have never been notified of any change though!) they could not tell me why this fundamental change was not notified to exisiting policy holders and they will be getting back to me today.

Hello Keefy no worries,

Admiral are still talking bolloc*s, it has always been their policy that for someone to drive another car on their own insurance a policy must be in place on that car, that has been standard across the board with insurance companies for yonks.

You know what is don't you ? I wish I could play back the conversation I had to you with Churchill and the nonsense I was told.

The thing is I don't know if she was lying or really believed what she was saying.

I've just spoken to a senior policy manager in their legal department and played back the conversation, he was truly utterly horrified at the advise given me.

Some young lady is going to get some urgent re-training as of now and I have not the slightest quarm about it.

Not aimed at you Keefy but any one else reading this, never, ever take for granted what an insurance sales person tells you, EVER! if you question a clause or several in an insurance document, get what is explained to you confirmed in writing, don't rely on the policy wording or spoken explanations.

"I was told" does not help anyone in the event of a claim.

[The Diva]

For you to have cover on other people's cars they must be insured fully comp, but you will only have third party cover when driving their vehicle. Be careful with this though as with most insurance companies this is now being phased out.

If virgin have stated they will not cover your brother, the only way round it is for you to cancel your policy and take out another policy elsewhere that would cover your brother. He cannot transfer his policy onto your policy. if his car was roadworthy you could have added his car onto your policy as a temporary additional vehicle.

[*Em*]

Originally Posted by seacam

I understand that, I did not know that was possible unless you were fully comp'.

None the less, even with permission of a vehicle owner and you with your own insurance in place, you can not drive a vehicle without the vehicle owner having insurance in place as well.

In respect of what you've said here, I bought a car 2 weeks ago. I drove the car home from the car yard and also to and from the car yard over the course of that week as I had some problems with it.

I hadn't cancelled my fully comp' insurance from my previous car (which I'd sold), therefore, as far as I was concerned I was still able to drive my new car with just TP cover - even though I was the new owner and didn't have it insured FC.. is this not correct? Was I driving without having myself covered?

Does it even make sense? Sorry..

[Keefy-boy]

Originally Posted by *Em*

In respect of what you've said here, I bought a car 2 weeks ago. I drove the car home from the car yard and also to and from the car yard over the course of that week as I had some problems with it.

I hadn't cancelled my fully comp' insurance from my previous car (which I'd sold), therefore, as far as I was concerned I was still able to drive my new car with just TP cover - even though I was the new owner and didn't have it insured FC.. is this not correct? Was I driving without having myself covered?

you were not covered by the TP cover from your other car's policy as you owned the new vehicle when you drove it and this cover only applies to vehicles that are not owned by you.

you may also have had trouble if it came to a claim because you had sold the other vehicle and not informed your insurers which would probably be in breach of their policy conditions.

Hi *Em*

If you no longer own a vehicle, you should notify your insurer and arrange cover for your new vehicle, and this should be done before you collect it. The dealership from which we purchased our current vehicle gave us a 'to do' list, one item of which was to arrange insurance, of which they required, in advance, sight of the insurance certificate to prove we had arranged cover.

[susie-4964]

Originally Posted by virgin_mary

Hi *Em*

If you no longer own a vehicle, you should notify your insurer and arrange cover for your new vehicle, and this should be done before you collect it. The dealership from which we purchased our current vehicle gave us a 'to do' list, one item of which was to arrange insurance, of which they required, in advance, sight of the insurance certificate to prove we had arranged cover.

That's correct. You must notify your insurance company if you change your car, and if you don't notify them, and you have an accident while driving your new car, you won't be insured because they have no record of you owning that car. I used to occasionally hire a car from the garage when mine was in for a service, and I actually had to get a cover note from the insurance company for the time I was hiring it. During that time, I wasn't insured to drive my own car. Basically, my car and the hire car could not both be insured if they were both available for me to drive! It's all very complicated, but always better to check with the company first.

[*Em*]

Originally Posted by Keefy-boy

you were not covered by the TP cover from your other car's policy as you owned the new vehicle when you drove it and this cover only applies to vehicles that are not owned by you.

you may also have had trouble if it came to a claim because you had sold the other vehicle and not informed your insurers.

I wasn't 'legally' the owner. Well, I was in the sense that I'd paid for the vehicle but there was nothing written on paper that I was the owner - I hadn't sent the V5 off at the time.

Originally Posted by virgin_mary

Hi *Em*

If you no longer own a vehicle, you should notify your insurer and arrange cover for your new vehicle, and this should be done before you collect it. The dealership from which we purchased our current vehicle gave us a 'to do' list, one item of which was to arrange insurance, of which they required, in advance, sight of the insurance certificate to prove we had arranged cover.

Ah right, I didn't realise this. I best be careful in future as this isn't the first time I've got a new car without changing my details over and cancelling the last.

Thanks guys.

[susie-4964]

Originally Posted by *Em*

Ah right, I didn't realise this. I best be careful in future as this isn't the first time I've got a new car without changing my details over and cancelling the last.

Thanks guys.

You have been VERY lucky, but don't count on it in the future!