ChatterBank1 min ago
its this right?
My brother was pulled by police in a car he just bought an was driving it home, he had insurance on his other car, an was fully legal.
he showed all documents for old car an new car to police woman an she told him to leave car there till he gets insurance, so he called his friend with pick up truck to get car an take it home. police gave a copy of form that said nothing but car an bothers details, then left, that was 2 months ago, but now he has a court date for not having insurance, he did was officer said an transfered insurance over 6 hours after been pull.
any advive would be helpful.
he showed all documents for old car an new car to police woman an she told him to leave car there till he gets insurance, so he called his friend with pick up truck to get car an take it home. police gave a copy of form that said nothing but car an bothers details, then left, that was 2 months ago, but now he has a court date for not having insurance, he did was officer said an transfered insurance over 6 hours after been pull.
any advive would be helpful.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by truebabe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is perfectly correct. Your brother was not insured to drive that car at the time he was stopped and he is being prosecuted for driving with no insurance.
This is the right and proper procedure and your brother has no real defence - if he had had an accident, his insurance company for the other car would not have paid out, because this car was not covered by the insurance policy.
This is the right and proper procedure and your brother has no real defence - if he had had an accident, his insurance company for the other car would not have paid out, because this car was not covered by the insurance policy.
<<then he is insured third party on any other car as long as he has permission to drive that car, >>
Where this clause exists in policies (and it isn't anywhere near as universal as it was at one time) it invariably says any other car NOT belonging to him - ie the second car has to be someone else's.
Where this clause exists in policies (and it isn't anywhere near as universal as it was at one time) it invariably says any other car NOT belonging to him - ie the second car has to be someone else's.
edward80 - your answer has worried me.
The 'any other car' is not standard in comprehensive insurance policies - it must be specifically stated and very often it is tempered with 'in an emergency'. This has been explained as the driver taking ill behind the wheel as an example.
As already stated the insured cannot own the second car.
It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure his policy does cover him in every scenario - it is not safe to assume.
The insurance companies stopped making 'any other car' a standard feature some years ago because it was being abused.
The 'any other car' is not standard in comprehensive insurance policies - it must be specifically stated and very often it is tempered with 'in an emergency'. This has been explained as the driver taking ill behind the wheel as an example.
As already stated the insured cannot own the second car.
It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure his policy does cover him in every scenario - it is not safe to assume.
The insurance companies stopped making 'any other car' a standard feature some years ago because it was being abused.
You state that your brother had " Just bought the car ".
Did he have a date and time, on his receipt of payment?
If the car in question still technically belonged to the vendor, EG ( The receipt was dated for the next day ), then provided his cover allowed it, your brother's insurance would still be valid, as the car was not yet his.
NB. In no way am I telling you to fiddle the receipt of payment. That would be very naughty.
Did he have a date and time, on his receipt of payment?
If the car in question still technically belonged to the vendor, EG ( The receipt was dated for the next day ), then provided his cover allowed it, your brother's insurance would still be valid, as the car was not yet his.
NB. In no way am I telling you to fiddle the receipt of payment. That would be very naughty.
As a Police Officer I can pretty much clear up in a nutshell what has been said here:
Your brother is been prosecuted for driving with no insurance. When you take out a Fully Comprehensive insurance policy it stipulates that you may drive another vehicle belonging to another providing you have their consent and are covered for third party only.
Quite simply, because your brother owns the car he was driving at the time of the offence and he didn't have an additional policy in place to cover this vehicle, he is driving with no insurance. For which he is extremely likely to be found guilty of.
Your brother is been prosecuted for driving with no insurance. When you take out a Fully Comprehensive insurance policy it stipulates that you may drive another vehicle belonging to another providing you have their consent and are covered for third party only.
Quite simply, because your brother owns the car he was driving at the time of the offence and he didn't have an additional policy in place to cover this vehicle, he is driving with no insurance. For which he is extremely likely to be found guilty of.
1 to 11 of 11
