Was stopped at garda check point without having insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Every car needs it’s own insurance, no matter what.

Once Car_A is insured, the policy holder can legally drive it. If Khayam has DOC as part of his own car’s insurance policy (most policies do), he can legally drive Car_A so long as he has permission to do so, and so long as his own car is not in use.
 
SparkRite said:
The vast majority of them do not stipulate such conditions.
Click to expand...

To stipulate it is superfluous. It would be like saying the car needs to have four wheels.

This is because all cars need their own insurance.

If the insurance on my wife’s car has expired, then I am no longer legally able to drive it under my own insurance’s DOC.
The last day of her policy, yes, but the day after, no.
 
RedOnion said:
That's not true, as already discussed above.
Click to expand...
Just because it’s been discussed above doesn’t make my fact untrue.
Unless things have changed since 2015 when I was discussing the matter with McCarthy Insurance Group in Fermoy.
 
Drakon said:
Just because it’s been discussed above doesn’t make my fact untrue.
Unless things have changed since 2015 when I was discussing the matter with McCarthy Insurance Group in Fermoy.
Click to expand...
Similarly to you saying something doesn't invalidate the written terms and conditions of insurance policies.

That was probably a condition of your policy.

My wife and I have different policies / insurers.

Mine has a condition that the other car must be insured.
My wife's policy doesn't.

Drakon said:
so long as his own car is not in use.
Click to expand...
I've never seen this condition anywhere. I've seen a condition that nobody else is driving on your policy at the time.
 

Step back and think about it.
A car insurance policy covering two operating vehicles at the same time?

My vehicle is six years old and worth about €25k. My insurance is €800 pa.
Do you think this policy for one vehicles could simultaneously be used for a second vehicles at the same time. Or a third/fourth/fifth?
 
Drakon said:
If Khayam has DOC as part of his own car’s insurance policy (most policies do), he can legally drive Car_A so long as he has permission to do so, and so long as his own car is not in use.
Click to expand...

The OP stated this was their second car suggesting they own it, DOC does not cover other cars you own.

Here is RSA's Ts&Cs for Dirving Other Cars:

Driving Other Motor Cars
We will cover You only under the terms of Section 1 of this Policy, provided Section 2 is operative on your policy schedule, while You are driving any private motor car with the owner’s permission, providing:
  1. the car is not owned by You, Your employer or Your business partner
  2. it is not hired to You or Your employer or business partners under a hire purchase agreement or a leasing agreement;
  3. it is not owned by or in the custody or control of a Motor Trade Business of which You are a member, director or employee;
  4. it is not a car-van with only 2 seats or less, nor a motorcycle nor commercial vehicle of any kind;
  5. there is no other policy in force, whether You are the policyholder of that policy or not, that covers Your driving of the car You are driving under this Section.
Click to expand...

AXA's:

Driving other cars
This cover will also apply if you are driving any other car which your certificate of insurance covers you to drive. If you are covered to drive other cars, it will be shown in section 5(b) of your certificate of insurance. This cover only applies if:
  • you do not own the car or you have not hired the car under a hire-purchase agreement;
  • it is shown that this cover applies under section 5(b) of your certificate of insurance;
  • you still own and insure your car under this policy and it hasn’t been damaged beyond economical repair
  • you have the owner’s permission to drive the car; and
  • the vehicle is being used within the ‘limits for use’ shown in your current certificate of motor insurance.
Click to expand...


There is no condition that the other car must be insured by its owner, the confusion may lie in AXA's condition that the driver must maintain active insurance on their own car to allow them drive other cars under the policy.
 
A car does not necessarily need to be insured by its owner. However, it needs to be insured (by someone).
 
Drakon said:
Every car needs it’s own insurance, no matter what.
Click to expand...
Fleet cover, Garage (plates) cover, Garda fleet etc. all covered but not individually (its own).

Drakon said:
To stipulate it is superfluous. It would be like saying the car needs to have four wheels.
Click to expand...
To stipulate it is far from superfluous, if a condition exists it is imperative that it be stated.

Drakon said:
A car does not necessarily need to be insured by its owner. However, it needs to be insured (by someone).
Click to expand...
99.9% of privately owned cars are and must be insured by their registered owner as who else would have an 'insurable interest'?

I am getting the distinct impression that you are just picking these T&C's 'out of thin air'.

As I have stated before, making blanket statements/assumptions are extremely 'foolhardy' when pertaining to indemnity policies.

To sum up, if a policy states " You may drive other cars, provided that ....blah...blah....." Then once those provisions are satisfied it is reasonable
to expect that you are indeed covered.
 
Last edited:
SparkRite said:
Fleet cover, Garage (plates) cover, Garda fleet etc. all covered but not individually (its own).
Click to expand...

You’re the only poster that has gone off on a non-privately owned cars tangent.

SparkRite said:
99.9% of privately owned cars ...
Click to expand...

Welcome back!

SparkRite said:
...who else would have an 'insurable interest'?
Click to expand...

Common example:

In 1995 Johnnie and Mary get married, and they have two children, Bridget and Jonjo.

Two decades later... and I’ll focus on Bridget as an example. She’s working and buys an Opel Corsa. €3,000 of her own money. However, she’s a young driver and her insurance premium is €1,500 per annum. Instead her daddy Johnnie insures her car in his name, and has her as a named driver. The premium is €950.

Let’s have a recap here:
Car Owner: Bridget
Insurance Policy Owner: Johnnie
Main Car Driver: Bridget
 
Drakon said:
Two decades later... and I’ll focus on Bridget as an example. She’s working and buys an Opel Corsa. €3,000 of her own money. However, she’s a young driver and her insurance premium is €1,500 per annum. Instead her daddy Johnnie insures her car in his name, and has her as a named driver. The premium is €950.

Let’s have a recap here:
Car Owner: Bridget
Insurance Policy Owner: Johnnie
Main Car Driver: Bridget
Click to expand...
Which is called "fronting". Which is illegal.
 
Drakon said:
In 1995 Johnnie and Mary get married, and they have two children, Bridget and Jonjo.

Two decades later... and I’ll focus on Bridget as an example. She’s working and buys an Opel Corsa. €3,000 of her own money. However, she’s a young driver and her insurance premium is €1,500 per annum. Instead her daddy Johnnie insures her car in his name, and has her as a named driver. The premium is €950.

Let’s have a recap here:
Car Owner: Bridget
Insurance Policy Owner: Johnnie
Main Car Driver: Bridget
Click to expand...

Again you are mistaken.

(real)Car owner: Bridget
Registered Car Owner: Johnnie (Daddy)
Listed Main Driver (Policy Holder): Johnnie (Daddy)
(real)Main Car Driver: Bridget

This is know as 'fronting' and is a 'very dangerous game to play'.
Insurance companies are well wise to this.

So as I said above (generally in ALL cases) only the registered owner can be the policy holder.

You may argue all you like and employ condescension in your replies if you feel the need to,
but it will in no way change the fact that you are in error, that is if you wish to stay legal, which if not, opens up all
sorts of possibilities.
Which I will not discuss.
 
Last edited:
Possibly.
However, every car needs ti have its own insurance. Or at least that was the case in 2015.
 
I’m trying to envision this no car insurance required scenario that’s being suggested.

A car and its owner have no insurance. Therefore the car displays no valid insurance disc. The car is borrowed by the owners brother, who has insurance on his own SUV, which is in the shop for repairs.

The brother can drive this car around legally?

Nah!
 
Drakon said:
Possibly.
However, every car needs ti have its own insurance. Or at least that was the case in 2015.
Click to expand...
No. It depends on the policy.

As an example, here's a thread on Liberty insurance from 2014, responded to by a liberty agent:

Drive other vehicle's? - Boards.ie

www.boards.ie www.boards.ie

"There is no requirement for the other vehicle to be insured, "

I have written confirmation from my insurer from 2015 confirming the circumstances I was insured to drive other cars.

Or I could say I had a chat with a broker, and what I said he said applies to every policy in the country...
 
Well if it’s on social media then it must be true. Conveniently there is no mention of the matter of an insurance “disc”.
 
Given the severity of being convicted of driving without insurance, I’d discuss such matters orally with a professional rather than any social media channel.

Personally I’d regard the latter as opinion, not advice.
 
Drakon said:
Given the severity of being convicted of driving without insurance, I’d discuss such matters orally with a professional rather than any social media channel.
Click to expand...

Why even post here if you have such disregard for the content posted by a verified business account on Boards?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top