fully comp/3rd party warning

[carmalee]

I'm sure there are others like me who don't always read the small print - my fully comp insurance certificate says I'm 'also insured to drive other vehicles' - I had always thought this meant I had the same level of cover on other cars as I did on my own. Not so, whereas I am covered to drive other vehicles on my policy, it's only 3rd party. To get fully comprehensive cover there is an extra charge each time I want to drive another vehicle on my own insurance if I want fully comp cover. Just thought it may help others to know this.

[redcrx]

many insurers dont even cover other vehicles at all on their policies.

you should also be aware that the other car should also have its own insurance.

[BertiWooster]

Further - you can only drive other vehicles with the owners permisssion

[hc4361]

And often only in an emergency. I dislike that term in an insurance policy because it is too open to interpretation. 'The driver is taken ill' has been cited as an example is one policy.

[carmalee]

gulp!

[chas2008]

its always been only covered to drive 3rd party with the owners consent and it has to have its own policy in place. Many policies have dropped this now as it was always open to a abuse, also if you declare you work in the motortrade they wont add this to your policy, the insurance companies seem to think you are going to drive customers vehicles on your own policy even if this isnt what you actually do ie office staff !! I work for a multi billion pound motor company with there own insurance in place and my insurance (Tescos) wont cover me , there is no way in the world i would be driving customers cars on my insurance but they wont budge on it.

[chas2008]

ps
i only found out after i overheard a conversation about the same thing then checked my policy to find out i can only drive my own vehicle on it....

[Gazza61]

It used to be pretty standard that if you had fully comp insurance you were insured to drive another vehicle with the owner's consent - but it's always been THIRD PARTY COVER only as far as I know.
Nowadays though some policies do not even incude this - so as others have said here it is obviously important to check. If you're still not sure, having read through your policy, it's best to ring your insurers who'll be able to advise if yoy have this cover.

[oldhamfan]

Also, and I know many will disagree..

It doesn't necessarily have to hold its own insurance.

My policy specifies this in the document - that the vehicle being driven third party must hold insurance in its own right. But all previous policies and those held by my family do not specifically say it must.

I asked my local traffic unit to clear this up and they do not prosecute drivers with third party cover driving otherwise uninsured vehicles if the policy does not specifically state that the vehicle itself must be insured.

[boxtops]

As others mention, this is not new - the driving of someone else's car but on your insurance has only ever been Third Party (so in other words you have to pay for any damage you cause while you are driving). Interesting though that some insurers are not including that extension now - I didn't know that. I only ever drive my own car, so that is useful to know.

[SeaJayPea]

If you watch any of these Cops with Cameras type of programmes, you'll often see policemen investigating insurance offences. Time after time they see a car on the road that's not insured. They have the absolute right to take the car away and keep it until they see that it is now covered. Many times the person who's driving says that he's covered on his own policy, but they still take it. They do so on the basis that, as redcrx and others have said, the car MUST have its own cover also.