I Failed! 1265Clive George I think it was because I was nervous, and tired. The main reason was because it wasn't smooth enough. This was due to lack of observation...
Maybe in some cases, but not all my policies have stated this.
Going back over time, I used to note that the clause used to mention being covered to drive cars insured elsewhere. And it's quite possible that in some cases, the clause on some policies has mentioned about the vehicles not being owned by the policyholder.
But the last few policies I've had, have just said (words to the effect) insured to drive other vehicles - nothing specifically qualified about them being insured elsewhere, or that they must be owned by somebody else, merely that I'm insured from a 3rd part perspective, to drive "other cars".
I Failed! 1266It happens that Peter formulated : Nervous is natural, but you should learn to settle down quickly. Do you take...
And presumably somewhat more cover for the vehicles than merely 3rd party cover whilst actually driving them.
No it's not - at least not across the board. I've had more than one policy that just states other cars - no further qualification.
Quite clearly it's not stating that these other cars are insured. Merely that I'm insured from a 3rd part perspective to drive other cars.
Why?
If I'm insured to drive another car, then why? If all that matters is the car is (effectively) insured from a 3rd party perspective when I drive it on a public road?
It's because the cover needs to be more than merely whilst I'm driving another car.
I'm not covering them - the policy is. I'm not liable for them - I've never conceded to that, nor has any policy I've taken out.
