any driver covered?

[Patf]

Having an argument with a neighbour who thinks extra drivers have to be added onto insurance policies, as in the UK. Even for a spouse, if the insurance is only in one name.

I disagree and think in France the insurance is valid for any driver, as long as they have a valid driving license - French or UK.

Or does it depend on the small print?

I think this has been discussed before but don't know how to phrase it for a search.

[AnOther]

Everything always depends on the small print but as a rule it France it is the car which is insured and anyone can drive it with permission. Obvious restrictions on young drivers.

I believe additional drivers should sign the insurance document, not the vignette in the windscreen or, if regular users, have a letter of authority from the owner.

TIP: Try this phrase for a search - insurance any driver [:D]

[Pickles]

Have a look here:

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1710207/ShowPost.aspx

(edited to correct the link)

But basically it depends on the small print in your policy.

Regards

Pickles

[Sunday Driver]

In France, as in anywhere else, it is the owner of the vehicle who insures himself against third party liability and, optionally, for any accident damage to his nominated vehicle.  All policies must, by law, indemnify the owner against third party liability whoever the driver of the vehicle may be and regardless of whether they have the owner's permission or not.

Cover for accident damage normally extends to anyone driving the vehicle with your permission, but you need to check the policy conditions for any specific restrictions such as minimum age limits, experience, etc.

 

 

[Beemer1150]

It's always worth a phone call...!

As it happens my reading of the insurance details was correct (and, I believe, they were the common form) and my visiting English friend was fully covered for both camping car and car providing he had held a licence for the proscribed period.

However, and interestingly, the agency also said provided he had his full icence with him. I'm aware of the necessity of carrying your licence at all times but this was the first time I'd heard about any insurance link. Right or wrong it was just easier to tell my friend to make sure he had his licence with him...!

[Patf]

Thanks for the replies.

This has prompted me to read my insurance policy and I hadn't realised how many separate situations it covers.

For the eventualities described, it seems that anyone with a driving license for 5yrs minimum, given my permission to drive, is covered by the policy.

The phrase "le vehicule assuré" is used throughout rather than "le conducteur assuré".

But as Beemer says, it's always worth a phone call.

[allanb]

A possible variation on this theme, which appears in my policy, is that if the driver is "inexperienced" the insurance is not restricted, but the deductible amount (franchise) is higher in the event of a damage claim. 

I don't think this applies to a third-party claim, where (as SD has said) the cover is mandated by law.

[JohnRoss]

 

My insurance company were very worried when I told them I had stopped driving my old car and wanted to cancel the insurance. Whilst I did take out a new policy for the new car they said that the old one should still be insured in case someone nicked it out of my barn and had an accident and that I would still be liable for the damage they did. It was only after I promised to immobilise it that they agreed to the arrangement. I don't think that they, Groupama, were trying it on and I duly took out the rotor arm to keep them happy. So any driver!.......................................JR

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Remembers to take a spare rotor arm when pinching JohnRosses car....

[JohnRoss]

Nah sold it din' I, luvly jubbly, diesel now with an electronic wotsit so tough..............................JR

[AnOther]

[quote user="JohnRoss"]Whilst I did take out a new policy for the new car they said that the old one should still be insured in case someone nicked it out of my barn and had an accident and that I would still be liable for the damage they did.[/quote]Nothing more than a nice little scam on their part to make money [:'(]

[JohnRoss]

Really not sure about that. Found the following on this forum...............JR

There are lot of reasons.WB  Unlike in France where as you probably know but Dog may not, you have to have insurance even if a vehicle is not in use, in the UK as mentioned there are off road vehicles that do not go on the public road, plus many vehicles in preservation and or restoration.

Quite right, interestingly in the exception quoted above it is the insurance company of the owner of the stolen vehicle (who quite understandably wont have had any involvement in the theft or carrying of "unknowing passenger" joyriders) that will pay out for the personal injuries of said "unknowing accomplice".

Section 151(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 places an

obligation on the insurers of the legal owner of a stolen

vehicle to meet a judgment against the driver of the

stolen vehicle.

So the insurers of the legal owner would have to pay out for damage/injury caused to a third party. The insured party is not liable but his insurance coy is.

Also see http://www.totalfrance.com/france/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70935&highlight=stolen+car+automobile+insurance 

This may be the important bit: Tout propriétaire d'un véhicule terrestre à moteur a l'obligation légale de souscrire un contrat d'assurance automobile couvrant sa responsabilité civile.

 

[Patf]

I think you are right John.

I was told the same thing by the Axa agent when I suggested taking one car off the road temporarily to save money. It still had to be insured, 3rdparty.

[AnOther]

I'm afraid we all know that insurance agents are apt to say whatever suits them and annecdotally AXA seem to rank amongst the worst offenders in this regard.

There is of course only one way to conclusively prove the principal of offroad insurance which is to find the actual passage in law which states it.

'Tout propriétaire d'un véhicule terrestre à moteur a l'obligation légale de souscrire un contrat d'assurance automobile couvrant sa responsabilité civile

Il doit alors répondre à différentes conditions:  (what conditions ?)

could possibly be a misinterpretation of the requirement for 3rd party cover for vehicles which are actually being used on the road.

Incidentally, UK are considering introducing such a requirement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6195021/Owners-of-uninsured-cars-face-new-fines-under-new-Government-curbs.html

The more cynical might think that this is more to do with the gathering of insurance premium tax then with road safety. People who choose to drive uninsured will drive uninsured irrespective of any laws.

[Sunday Driver]

Article L211-1 of the code des assurances places the obligation on vehicle owners to insure themselves against civil liability through the use of their vehicles on the road.  The article further requires that the insurance must equally cover civil liability of all persons in charge of or driving the vehicle, even without the owner's authority.

As professionals operating within a regulatory environment, the insurance companies will clearly be well aware of the provisions of the code and will have formulated their procedures accordingly.

For the uninformed who harbour the incredible belief that this is all a scam and that the insurers are lying to the public, the actual passage in law can be found via www.legifrance.gouv.fr

 

[AnOther]

Thank you SD, I knew we could rely on you if prodded with the correct implement [:D][:D][:D]

[Chancer]

I remember watching the French TV program (forgot the name) where a panel of experts sit in the studio with some poor mug punter while a dolly bird with a mobile phone doorsteps the presumed guilty party, usually it is very lightweight and they might occasionally get a serial fraudster of a financial advisor who has robbed €40k from a pensioner to promise to pay it back at €50 per month to the cheers of the studio audience etc etc.

However one time they did actually get a result for the family of a young man made tetraplegic from an off road motorcycle accident and forced the insurers (AXA who else?) to pay out after the family had been fighting for several years.

The crux of the story was the teenager bought an off road bike, non registered and indeed unregisterable as it was not built for road use, had no lights etc and hence never had a COC. His mother being worried took the son and the bike down to the insurance agent who was more than happy to strap them up with an insurance which included permanent bodily injury to the policyholder, the agent entered the details and printed out the formulaire with the bike make and model, capacity and "pas matriculée" for the registration number.

During the term of the policy the lad injured his-self gravely whilst off roading in a quarry, the insurers refused to pay out as the accident was not on the road despite the fact that the bike could not legally be ridden on the road.

[allanb]

I sympathize very much with anyone suffering from that kind of injury.  But I also see it from the point of view of the insurer: did the policy cover injury suffered during off-road use, or didn't it?

This point has been made before, but maybe it needs to be made again: you have to read your policy.  Don't rely on what you think the agent said.  His English may be no better than your French.

If you can't read your policy, get someone to translate it for you.  If you don't know anyone who will translate it free, pay a translator's fee.

It's a waste of money to pay a premium for insurance that doesn't provide the cover you think you have.

I know, I will be accused of being heartless, unsympathetic, etc, etc.  But  I believe that what I say is good advice.

[Chancer]

Allan.

Yes it did cover it which is why the insurer was eventually shamed enough by the media attention to pay out, it was over a million Euros which perhaps explains, but not excuses, them trying their damnest to avoid doing so.

It wasnt a rich family, much poorer for family members having to give up work to provide round the clock care.

I agree with you re "dont rely on what the agent said", from my experience I would even say "assume that every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie" but as for what "you think he said, his English may be no better than your French" that is a sweeping  assumption.

I have never had a conversation be it with a bank, doctor, insurance agent or whoever in English from the day I arrived here, even when my French was very weak no-one ever tried to explain in English, I really dont know how others get by.

[allanb]

[quote user="Chancer"]Yes it did cover it which is why the insurer was eventually shamed enough by the media attention to pay out...[/quote]It makes you wonder what spurious reason they produced for refusing payment in the first place![quote]...but as for what "you think he said, his English may be no better than your French" that is a sweeping assumption.[/quote]Not at all.  I'm not saying it was the case here.  It's just an observation about what could happen, if an agent's English isn't quite good enough to explain the conditions properly.

[Chancer]

I think that we are looking at this from different viewpoints, probably a reflection of the different areas that we live in.

You speak of an agents English perhaps not being good enough to explain the conditions whereas where I am it is the opposite, none of the agents speak English and it is a question of whether my French is good enough to understand the conditiions, - it is [:)]

I really dont know how some of the others in the area get by, either they cant and hence dont ask the questions or more likely they take along their long suffering neighbours to interpret, lucky for me living in a very poor and run down area none of mine can hence why my French is now good [;-)]

[Jo]

[quote user="AnOther"]Thank you SD, I knew we could rely on you if prodded with the correct implement [:D][:D][:D]

[/quote]

JohnRoss's rotor arm?[:D][:D][:D]