Unusual car insurance question

E

elacsaplau

Registered User
Messages
889
My grand uncle had a stroke and will not be driving again. The trouble is that he doesn't recognise this due to cognitive impairment as a result of the stroke. He is in a nursing home but goes to the family home about once a week.

He thinks almost non-stop about driving so selling the car would cause unnecessary emotional turmoil.

The car insurance is due for renewal shortly. What to do? The car isn't worth that much - say €7k. Should we just "self-insure" or go 3rd party fire & theft? Is "theft" only available? Any thoughts?
 
Tragically, your-grand uncle suffers from a serious condition which would seem to render him ineligible to hold a driving licence or to be insured to drive. You must talk to his doctors about this in case there is a danger he would cause an accident. This could be a matter of public safety. Why were the insurance company not informed immediately of the change in circumstances?
 
mathepac said:
Tragically, your-grand uncle suffers from a serious condition which would seem to render him ineligible to hold a driving licence or to be insured to drive. You must talk to his doctors about this in case there is a danger he would cause an accident. This could be a matter of public safety. Why were the insurance company not informed immediately of the change in circumstances?
Click to expand...

The OPs post suggests that he hasn't driven since the stroke '... will not be driving again..'.
 
peteb said:
And you can't "self insure" whatever that means!
Click to expand...

I'm guessing in this case it means just taking the chance that if the car is stolen from their property, that they will cover the loss themselves.

All state vehicles are self-insured, you'll never see an insurance disc in a Garda car for instance, marked or unmarked. Not an option for us regular folk though.
 
OP, I find your post a bit confusing. If, as you say, your grand uncle isn't going to drive, why are you insuring the car?

If you want it to remain there, so your uncle can see it when he comes home every week, then why not just disable it as suggested, to prevent theft.

Can you clarify your question?
 
Apologies if my post wasn't clear. My grand uncle will not be driving again (and hasn't driven since his stroke). I suppose the reason for the question was to make sure that I wasn't missing anything obvious. Measure twice, etc.

Leo has set out precisely what I meant by self-insure which seems the best option. I'd be interested to know what cremeegg meant in this regard? Disabling the car is a good idea. Interesting points losttheplot - I'm not sure but thankfully not relevant in this case.

Thanks again everyone.
 
Last edited:
Just park the car off the public road and disable it through the removal of some part of the engine.

That makes sure that he does not drive it and that no one will steal it.

If he wants to drive, can you bring him to a simulator?

Brendan
 
Peanuts said:
If the car is stolen & damage caused to other property, are you liable?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the owner is not liable

Brendan Burgess said:
If he wants to drive, can you bring him to a simulator?
Click to expand...

He is paralysed on one side. When I said he thinks about driving all the time - in part this can be viewed as representing his wish to regain his independent old life which was destroyed in an instant by the severity of the stroke. Stuck in a wheelchair in a nursing home is not where he saw himself a few months ago. For example, he is conscious/aware enough to enquire about the car insurance policy (as in - he is able to remember that its renewal date is about now) but because of the curious damage caused by the stroke, he simply isn't conscious that he can't drive!
 
Peanuts said:
If the car is stolen & damage caused to other property, are you liable?
Click to expand...

No, the driver of a stolen car is liable for any damage they cause. The MIBI will cover cases where the driver isn't identified or doesn't have funds.
 
A very difficult situation.

OP's GU must declare his medical condition to the motor insurance underwriters before next renewal.
His medical circumstances constitute what is known as a material fact.
The duty of disclosure revives every year at renewal.
Failure to disclose at next renewal renders the policy voidable at the insurer's option.
The underwriters may investigate this and well decide to decline renewal of the policy which could be a very unfortunate but effective way of bringing matters to a head i.e. no more insurance - no more driving - give up car...

Ideally, GU should sell the car to OP if he is interested in buying.
However, be careful that GU actually has the mental capacity to enter a contract for sale.

As matters stand OP can do virtually nothing.
He cannot insure the car because he probably lacks insurable interest.
Insurers will probably refuse to deal with OP anyhow - privity of contract, GDPR and so on.
If GU is insured through a broker it might be easier for them to deal with the insurer.

OP should never drive the car as matters stand.
Even if GU told OP he could drive the car would he be able to affirm that consent tomorrow or next week ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top