not sure if its been done earlier but there is trouble ahead in the insurance world....basically its this kind of thing....

Norwich Union claims the clause is being abused. It says unscrupulous motorists are taking out cheap policies on low-risk cars and then driving more powerful vehicles belonging to friends or relatives.

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9557-1816915,00.html

 

doesnt affect me...but i'm sure a few on here will be hit sooner or later as the other companies jump in-line

FFS insurance companies make a fortune, and they charge stupid prices for cover, so personally i think that the cover on another car clause should be left in... not only does it help to cut uninsured drivers, as you are technically insured on the car you are driving, but it allows people to drive nicer cars which they coulnd't afford to drive otherwise because insurace compaies take the piss!

Esure, another insurer, estimates that claims under the clause account for only 0.2% of the industry total.

 

Sounds like Norwich Union kicking up a fuss over nothing

it was my understanding, if you drive another car with this type of cover, that your only insured third party only ?

so i cant see how that costs them at all

http://www.luckykazoo.com/media/2005/03/e-sure-remix.html :D :nana2: :nana2: :nana2:

it was my understanding, if you drive another car with this type of cover, that your only insured third party only ?

so i cant see how that costs them at all

 

Their argument (taken to extremes) is that you could insure a mini, jump in a ferarri and run over a bus queue of people! Although anyone who would be stupid enough to risk their expensive car driving TPO should be shot anyways!

 

As usual, the police are jumping on the bandwagon saying it will reduce the number of people claiming they don't know who's driving - but I'd argue most of that is peope who are named drivers on a policy rather than people just borrowing cars.

As usual, the police are jumping on the bandwagon saying it will reduce the number of people claiming they don't know who's driving - but I'd argue most of that is peope who are named drivers on a policy rather than people just borrowing cars.

dont remember reading that bit... :rofl:

 

NU were the first to overturn motorcycle insurance n the 80's by stopping rider policies....People moaned and whinged about it then.

 

Other companies will probably follow suit.