ChatterBank1 min ago
How Long Have Insurance Companies Inserted The Clause 'not To Be Used For Commuting', In Their Policies?
87 Answers
http://
I wonder how many working age motorists, use their vehicles only for 'Social, domestic and pleasure purposes?
Mind you these days, 'pleasure purposes' is a laugh, who gets pleasure from motoring on the roads today?
I wonder how many working age motorists, use their vehicles only for 'Social, domestic and pleasure purposes?
Mind you these days, 'pleasure purposes' is a laugh, who gets pleasure from motoring on the roads today?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
From Direct Lines website:-
Direct Line's Social, Domestic and Pleasure policy cover includes commuting. This allows you to drive to and from a permanent place of work.
I’ve been insured with Direct Line for well over 20 years – and I’ve never heard of such an exclusion (that social domestic and pleasure does not include commuting).
When I first started to drive my own car, the only insurance options were social domestic & pleasure or business. By default every SD&P policy included commuting. The only reason to separate it out is so that insurance companies can make more money.
My advice is to steer clear of any insurance company who feels the need to exclude commuting from their policies.
Direct Line's Social, Domestic and Pleasure policy cover includes commuting. This allows you to drive to and from a permanent place of work.
I’ve been insured with Direct Line for well over 20 years – and I’ve never heard of such an exclusion (that social domestic and pleasure does not include commuting).
When I first started to drive my own car, the only insurance options were social domestic & pleasure or business. By default every SD&P policy included commuting. The only reason to separate it out is so that insurance companies can make more money.
My advice is to steer clear of any insurance company who feels the need to exclude commuting from their policies.
Hymie //My advice is to steer clear of any insurance company who feels the need to exclude commuting from their policies. //
My advice is to steer clear of any insurance company who doesn't give a discount for excluding commuting from their policies. Why should I subsidise those people who drive at the most dangerous part of the day?
My advice is to steer clear of any insurance company who doesn't give a discount for excluding commuting from their policies. Why should I subsidise those people who drive at the most dangerous part of the day?
I have been driving for around 25 years and all of the policies that I have ever had have divided out travel to and from work from SDP. I assumed it was because at that time many ladies who drove were stay at home mums who didn't drive to work. Its nice that Direct Line don't but I do wonder if that means that everyone is paying as though they commute?
Eddie @20:22 // I worked for the same employer but at 2 different addresses on different days of the week. So how would that have affected 'driving to a single place of employment. //
I think you could argue that you only went to and from one place of work on a given day. Travelling between the two places would have broken the conditions of the policy.
I think you could argue that you only went to and from one place of work on a given day. Travelling between the two places would have broken the conditions of the policy.
“….but then why is there a s.148(2) of the RTA? The clauses are allowed in policies - but have no effect so far as the RTA is concerned.”
This is getting complicated but has a direct influence on this question.
The principle reason for the clauses being listed in S148 is that although the clauses may be inserted to avoid liability under non-mandatory cover (e.g. “own damage”) they cannot be invoked to avoid cover required under the RTA (which is unlimited personal injury and £1m damage to property). The idea is that the insurer must continue to handle (and meet) the Third Party claim and this is designed to provide protection for victims. As far as recovery of their outlay from the policyholder goes, the circumstances would have to be considered by a civil court. However, because this mandatory cover must still be provided by the insurer because they are listed in S148 the driver is still insured and so cannot be convicted of driving without insurance.
However, as far as this question is concerned, the matter of driving for a purpose not covered (e.g. commuting when only SDP is covered) is not listed in S148. This means the insurer can not only repudiate liability for optional cover (e.g. “own damage”) but can deny cover for RTA purposes as well. In this case the victim would have to resort to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau uninsured drivers’ scheme. However, there is an agreement between the MIB and insurers. In cases where this situation (and one or two others such as where the policy has been voided because of a false declaration) prevails the insurers agree to handle and meet the Third Party claim. This is designed to protect MIB funds which are provided by a levy on all insurers. The critical difference is that where the MIB would normally meet the claim it is only the agreement between them and the insurers that means the liability reverts to the insurer. The driver in these circumstances is thus driving uninsured and so can be convicted of that offence.
This is getting complicated but has a direct influence on this question.
The principle reason for the clauses being listed in S148 is that although the clauses may be inserted to avoid liability under non-mandatory cover (e.g. “own damage”) they cannot be invoked to avoid cover required under the RTA (which is unlimited personal injury and £1m damage to property). The idea is that the insurer must continue to handle (and meet) the Third Party claim and this is designed to provide protection for victims. As far as recovery of their outlay from the policyholder goes, the circumstances would have to be considered by a civil court. However, because this mandatory cover must still be provided by the insurer because they are listed in S148 the driver is still insured and so cannot be convicted of driving without insurance.
However, as far as this question is concerned, the matter of driving for a purpose not covered (e.g. commuting when only SDP is covered) is not listed in S148. This means the insurer can not only repudiate liability for optional cover (e.g. “own damage”) but can deny cover for RTA purposes as well. In this case the victim would have to resort to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau uninsured drivers’ scheme. However, there is an agreement between the MIB and insurers. In cases where this situation (and one or two others such as where the policy has been voided because of a false declaration) prevails the insurers agree to handle and meet the Third Party claim. This is designed to protect MIB funds which are provided by a levy on all insurers. The critical difference is that where the MIB would normally meet the claim it is only the agreement between them and the insurers that means the liability reverts to the insurer. The driver in these circumstances is thus driving uninsured and so can be convicted of that offence.
Motor Insurance companies are usually large and impersonal outfits that operate like a machine. They have to be, or they couldn't function at all, whereas customers tend to take it all very personally. This relationship seems to work somehow despite all the fiddles and inequities involved. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that claimants have to declare why they were on a particular road at a particular time when involved in an accident, so I suspect that commuting incidents are treated like any others.
Let's face it, if they pay out zillions to the "whiplash" industry just to keep the peace they aren't about to penalise Joe who has an accident round the corner from his home, just because he happens to be on his way to work.
Let's face it, if they pay out zillions to the "whiplash" industry just to keep the peace they aren't about to penalise Joe who has an accident round the corner from his home, just because he happens to be on his way to work.
It's not so much a mistake as carelessness, TWR. You are asked specifically what you use the car for and given options. To be fair, some things (like driving other people's cars) are not specifically asked about and you have to read the details of the cover carefully before you buy a policy but what you will use the car for is a choice from options.
Hopkirk, if you are a district nurse or similar then you need full business use (what used to be called full class A) Travel to and from work doesn't cover you. I know this because I used to work in the community myself and manage community staff, among them district nurses. The difference is that for the commute level to cover you, you have to be in a circumstance where you travel to work at the start of you working day and then you stay there until the end of your working day. If you eg go shopping in your lunch hour then that is covered by the SDP element of your cover.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.