Comp insurance and a named driver.

[modeller]

If you have comp. insurance and also have a named driver on the policy is the comp driver also fully covered. ? If not what is the point of naming another driver.?

[mumsie_wumsie]

I have fully comp insurance on my car. My daughter is a named driver and she has the same protection as I have---Fully comp..

[hellywelly4]

To keep the premium down. So the only people covered fully comp to drive are the policyholder and the named driver.

[Graham-W]

The policyholder will probably be covered (third party) to drive other peoples vehicles but the named driver will not, usually, have this cover.

[factor-fiction]

The point of naming another driver is to ensure appropriate cover for the person you name if ever they drive your vehicle.
I don't know what you mean by the the COMP DRIVER

[New Judge]

“Comprehensive” cover has nothing to do with who is allowed to drive. Motor policies can be “Third Party Only” (the minimum covered required by law which provides cover for damage or injury caused to Third Parties only). This is often extended to include cover against Fire and Theft for the insured vehicle. Comprehensive policies provide cover for Third Party injury or damage, Fire and Theft for the policyholder’s vehicle and Accidental Damage cover to the vehicle (regardless of who was at fault).

All of these policies can provide cover for the policyholder only, or for the policyholder and one or more named drivers or (very unusual these days) any driver. As “any driver” cover is rare policyholders who require cover for somebody in addition to themselves have to “name” the driver(s) and the cover provided for the named driver(s) is the same as that provided for the policyholder.

[modeller]

factor I meant is the named driver also fully covered by the comprehensive policy of the policy holder.

[factor-fiction]

Yes

[modeller]

Thanks everyone.

[flip_flop]

Pedant Warning****Pedant Warning

Third Party Only is not the minimum cover required by the Road Traffic Act.

Third Party Only cover usually provides unlimited cover for damage to third party property, whereas the Act specifies the minimum amount required.

So, the minimum cover required to keep somebody legal is Road Traffic Act Cover only. This occassionally used to be used by insurers for somebody with a poor history when the minimum amount required by law was £250,000, but as the minimum amount now (from memory) is £2,000,000 its use is rare.

[New Judge]

*** Further Pedant Warning ***

I don’t know if your answer quite made it clear, flip_flop, that the upper limit (which is £1m) applies to damage to property only. There is no requirement in law to have cover above that amount for that risk. Here’s an extract from the Act:

The policy shall not ...be required—

(a) [Irrelevant]

(b) to provide insurance of more than £1,000,000 in respect of all such liabilities as may be incurred in respect of damage to property caused by, or arising out of, any one accident involving the vehicle

However there is no upper limit on cover required for causing death or personal injury. As you say, most insurers usually provide unlimited cover for both risks.

Until 1988 (I think the change was made with the introduction of the 1988 Road Traffic Act) there was no requirement to have cover for damage to property at all. Cover was only needed against death or personal injury.

However, we digress!

[flip_flop]

Quite

[flip_flop]

***Further Pedant Warning***

the RTA only requires insurance on any highway and any other road to which the public has access (for 'road' also read car park).

So, for example, if there is an obstruction to gain access to a private lane (such as a gate) and the obstruction is overcome and the driver causes damage to third party property, the RTA does not apply and therefore a RTA Liability Only policy would not provide the driver with cover to pay for the damage to the third party property.

Third Party Only insurance does not have this restriction.