Am I Insured?

[kelfoan]

I need to drive my late uncles car to bring it back to my property. My insurance policy states that I am covered to drive another car with the owner’s express consent. As executor for his will I am responsible for his estate, of which the car is part. However would I still be covered to drive his car as he is obviously unable to give consent now. If not, any suggestions how I can legally drive the car to take it to my address?

[EDDIE51]

I would sell the car from where it is and pay the cash into the estate.
If the car itself has been left to someone, then let them collect it from it's present location and sort out the insurance.

[New Judge]

Apart from whether or not you are insured you should bear in mind that the "Continuous Insurance" regulations mean that the car itself has to have a valid insurance policy at all times. If your uncle was the policyholder then that policy will almost certainly have lapsed upon his death. This means the car should not be kept on the road. You may also find that even if your own policy covers you to drive other vehicles it may stipulate that the vehicle you drive has to have its own policy as I described above.

I think you would be well advised to contact your insurers (or any other) to see if you can buy a bespoke policy.

[Hymie]

New Judge, what you say is interesting:-

‘If your uncle was the policyholder then that policy will almost certainly have lapsed upon his death.’

Imagine I am driving my car and have a heart attack and die – the car continues on its path and crashes causing significant damage/injury to others.

Based on your statement, my insurance company could claim my insurance had lapsed at the time of my death (due to a heart attack) and the only option for those who suffered loss as a result of the subsequent crash would be to claim against my estate.

I’ve never heard of such a thing happening, but I wouldn’t put such behaviour beyond what an insurance company might deem perfectly reasonable.

[Hopkirk]

Hymie, you wouldn't be legally dead until a doctor declare you dead.

[murraymints]

when dad passed the car's insurance was lapsed and it cold not be moved 'till ownership had been transferred and further insurance bought

[xacross]

You should be able to transfer your insurance to your uncles car on a temporary basis

[EDDIE51]

^ Kelfoan does not own the car xacross, you can't transfer your own insurance to a car you do not own as you do not have an 'insurable interest ' in it.

[New Judge]

Let's not get too bogged down.

First – the car must have a valid policy in its own right. It needs this to be driven (by anybody) on the road. If it doesn’t have one it cannot be driven or even kept on the road. If it is on the road at the moment and the earlier policy has lapsed because of the death of your uncle an offence has been committed. (Quite who would be prosecuted is a little unclear because the person responsible for it is no longer with us, but the offence is committed nonetheless). If it does not appear on the Motor Insurers’ Database (and you can check this at www.askmid.co.uk) it is liable to be seized by the police under S165 of the RTA. Unless you have informed the insurers it is unlikely the policy will have been lapsed (because they won’t know of your uncle’s death) and it may still appear on the database. However, in the event of an accident cover will be denied.

Second – it is unlikely your existing policy will cover you because it will probably state that any “other vehicle” you might drive has to be insured in its own right. Even if you are covered it will be for Third Party only. This means if you have an accident, damage to your uncle’s car will not be covered.

My own view is that, as part of your duty as executor, you should transfer ownership of the car to yourself, register it in your own name and then insure it in your own name before driving it anywhere.

[Hopkirk]

If you are in the RAC or AA perhaps ask for their advice. This must be quite a common occurrence.

[Arrods]

New Judge Re your second point, there is only one (maybe two) insurers that require the car being driven to have insurance in its own right. This particular requirement defeats the original object of driving other cars cover.

[RobNorth]

Your own insurer should be able to do it over the phone for a nominal charge if any. A similar situation exists every time you get a loaner while your car is being serviced - a short term cover is made.

[New Judge]

I think you’ll find it’s more than one or two, Arrods. The last two (at least) policies I have taken out (with different insurers) include the stipulation. Here’s my latest conditions for driving other vehicles:

providing:

- you or your spouse/domestic partner have the owner’s permission;
- the other car is insured in its own right;
- you or your spouse/domestic partner are not covered on any other insurance policy to drive the other car;
- the other car is not owned by you or your spouse/domestic partner and is not hired to you or your spouse/domestic partner under a hire purchase or self-drive agreement;
- and the vehicle insured under this policy is still owned by you or your spouse/domestic partner and has not been stolen or damaged beyond economical repair

You are quite right in that the stipulation certainly does defeat the original object of “driving other cars” cover. That was, that not only could they driven if the policy in force for them did not allow another driver to drive them but also that they could be driven even though the owner had no insurance at all. That is now no longer permitted under the law because of the “continuous insurance” regulations. If insurers provided cover as you suggest without such a stipulation they would be insuring a car that in fact should not be on the road at all.

“A similar situation exists every time you get a loaner while your car is being serviced - a short term cover is made.”

This situation is not the same at all, Rob. When you are loaned a car by a trader that car will be insured in its own right (probably on the trader’s policy). The “Continuous Insurance” requirement has changed the game completely.

[EDDIE51]

Another option is to get the car 'trade plated' back to you or delivered on a trailer.

[woofgang]

Its a while ago now but when my DH died, he left two motorbikes. I contacted the insurer and they allowed the cover to stand until the bikes were sold. One bike was sold to a dealer so the question of driving it never arose but I was allowed to allow test drives on the other bike provided that the test driver was insured to drive other bikes of the right cc. As I understand inheritance law, you, as the executor are now the owner of the car so you can give yourself permission to drive it. You’d need to talk to both insurance companies to get it sorted.

[Arrods]

Hi New Judge. I still think there are only one or two insurers that stipulate that the driven car must be insured. There may be several different brands but I think they all come under the Admiral Insurance banner.

Also, driving other cars is really only there to cater for the 'emergency' situation. Thus the driver with such cover would have the protection of insurance but it would be the keeper who would be committing the offence of 'keeping a vehicle without insurance' or not having SORN'd it.

[Peter Pedant]

where are we up to ?

I am sorry Kelfoan for your loss and also the trouble that your uncles death has caused - of which this is only one

One think to remember is that as executor you are your uncles representative on Earth and so you can do anything he could.
( as our resident QC Barmaid pointed out - even change the will)

so you can give yourself permission to drive his car

I am not aware about the requirements to drive already insured cars. If it is so - then according to the records it is still insured so you shouldnt bling any cameras as you drive it home thro Little Blogford.

I googled
"is a car insured if it is driven by the executor of the dead owner?"

and there was autocomplete for
"driving a deceased persons vehicle"

and you can spend many happy hours reading about his common problem - oh dont forget about his house insurance - that has lapesed almost certainly - and it seems to boil down to

ringing his insurance company ( remember to say you are the executor )
or your own company ( remember to say you are the executor

[ it seems that you are insured for maintenance purposes of which driving it to your house for safety would be one
and not for personal use]

Hey I like the hard case of s/o dying at the wheel
and the insurance co saying - well he's dead so he isnt insured ....

[New Judge]

You can use a lot of words and not get bogged down, allen. It’s called providing a comprehensive answer without straying from the point.

“There may be several different brands but I think they all come under the Admiral Insurance banner.”

My current insurers are not under the Admiral banner, Arrods, and my previous ones were not either. Drivers like me who drive other cars under their policy would not be covered if the other car did not have its own cover. A car owner allowing me to drive his uninsured car would not only be guilty of keeping a car without insurance (an offence that does not carry an endorsement). He would also be guilty of permitting me to drive without insurance (an offence that carries an endorsement – code IN12 - and a minimum of six penalty points). Apart from that, as I said earlier, whilst driving a car without its own cover I would be liable to be stopped by the police and the car seized.

It is important for anybody seeking to use the “driving other cars” facility to be sure that the “must be insured in its own right” stipulation is not contained in their policy conditions. I mentioned it because that clause is becoming increasingly common as insurers do not want to be seen to be providing cover for cars that should not be on the road at all.

[Arrods]

Hi New Judge. Would it be possible for you to name the insurers that have this requirement? I say this because I had to do some research into this area recently and it seemed to me that it wasn't that common, at least amongst the major players. None of the insurers in our family have this requirement.

If I have DOC cover without the condition, I cannot see how the other party can be guilty of a 'causing or permitting' when I have 'proper' TP cover.

[New Judge]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. They would only be guilty of permitting if the stipulation was present (as no cover would be in place). They wouldn't be guilty if the stipulation was not in place, Arrods (because cover would be provided).But as the vehicle would not be on the Motor Insurers' Database it would still be liable to be stopped and seized.

My current insurers are Saga. Link to their policy booklet here:

https://www.saga.co.uk/insurance/include/onlinedocs/motor/pdfs/Saga-Motor-PolicyBooklet-CSBMT3046.pdf

Driving other cars is detailed on page 15. I think my previous insurers were AXA but with no valid policy with them at present I cannot seem to be able to get to their policy documents easily.