The worst drivers in the UKConducted by lads' magazine FHM, the survey also showed that Belfast had the drunkest drivers, and Bristol the safest. The calmest young drivers came from Lincoln, while...
car, car, clearly to that the should
That may be the case in general, but as far as whether you are insured or not, is not up to the courts to decide. It depends upon whatever your insurance co decides to include or exclude in their policy, and as long as that conforms to the legal requirements of the law as far as using a car on a public road is concerned, the courts have no interest. It is my argument that if the conditions you suggest are not clearly stated in your policy, one may buttume they don't apply. It would be extremely negligent on the part of the insurance co not to mention such critical conditions in their policies, if they did. I'd go as far as to suggest that if they did try to include them in retrospect, the courts would not allow them to do so.
There may be some case law on the subject, but in the mean
Fairy nuff. You're playing safe. Nick Finnigan though, in an earlier post seemed to recall a test case that established that the 'borrowers' insurance had to pay out when the car rolled down a hill, and damaged another car, after he'd parked it. Even though the owner did have the car insured. If his recollection is correct, it would support my argument. Mike.
ABOUT TIME 1244Ian Dalziel" wrote in message Not necessarily. One common situation where someone might drive a car not owned by them is when they...
