Driving different cars & insurance?

[FessaEst]

Is there a way of being insured to drive on others' cars, even if you don't have a car yourself? Until recently I have had my own car, with comprehensive insurance that covered me to drive my parents' cars etc. However, we have gone down to one car, and I am only a named driver on my husband's policy. I was about to borrow my Mum's car today when I realised that I am not insured. I rang the insurance company and sopke to a really unhelpful girl who said I would have to get temporarily insured on each car I want to drive. Is there anyway of being insured to drive other cars at all times?

Can you not be a named driver on your mum's insurance? Though that doesn't help with any other cars you might want to borrow.

When you have your own car insurance, you are only insured third party on other people's cars. My mum used to have insurance where anyone else could drive her car (with comprehensive cover) I think although don't think she has that now. How many other cars do you generally drive? I only drive mine and H's.

You should never have been driving your mums car on the Driving Other Cars clause anyway - this is supposed to be only for emergencies

You need to be a named driver on your mums policy

Really CMOT?

Me and my friends are always borrowing each others cars - there's always someone whose car is broken. I thought if your insurance covered you to drive any other vehicle that was ok?

CMOT, the phrasing was v clear in my last policy, I was comprehensively insured on my own vehicle, and insured 3rd party (as Lawrie said) on any other vehicle, as long as it was not hired or leased, and I had the owner's permisssion, it didn't specify it was only for emergencies. I have used it to drive work colleagues' cars etc.

Queen - I could be named on my parents' policies, but it is a faff. Also, was hoping there might be a solution so I then have the option of driving work colleagues' cars etc.

Really - that clause is there so that you can legally drive someone elses car if they are taken ill, that sort of thing. It is not supposed to be used as a routine thing. Most insurers have now removed this cover anyway as it was being abused

cmotdibbler, what are you talking about? its fine, its still routinely on most insurance, you just need to know you're only covered 3rd party usually.
I would get yourself as a named driver on families car, or could you can get temporary insurance for specific occasions, you can do a day at a time if you need to but its quite expensive (had to do this when I briefly owned two cars at the same time!)

Personally I would never let anyone drive my car if they are only covered for 3rd party. I was backended and they only popped my bumper and scratched it and it cost £1k to repair! (I am fully comp as was the driver who hit me)

If you borrow your Mum's car on a regular basis then you need to be a named driver unless you can stump up thousands to replace the cost of the car if there is an accident.

the short answer is no

the driving other cars on your own insurance is an extension of the cover you have on your own car - it's not recommended for regular use, just really one offs, as cmot said.

You used to be able to get a policy for your own car which would cover, say anyone over 25 fully, but these are few and far between now and the loss ratio on claims on these policies were high

There is no specification in the wording that says the 'Driving other cars' extension is for emergencies only. And therefore it is not for emergencies only. The term 'emergency' is too subjective - one person's emergency would be another person's minor irritation.

Because of abuse, it is no longer included on policies for younger drivers. Not sure what the cut-off age is - 25?? I'm certainly able to drive other cars on mine - do it regularly with the kids' cars (mind you, they're not worth much, so TPO is fine)

But I have to agree with blushing et al - there is no form of insurance that will cover you to drive other cars without owning a car yourself. I don't really understand why, as it would be a relatively small risk I would have thought.