If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I want insurance to insure me in case I am taken to court in an effort to apportion blame for the actual accident. Those costs (for both parties), should I lose, would have to be bourne by me; hence the need for insurance. Being on the losing side, according to the folk in your link, will cost me money.
'Legal Cover' is so you can sue them. If they sue you, that's what the third party bit's for.
Your quotes refer to uninsured losses. Those are a completely different thing. They can only be paid to the person 'not at fault' and the compensation will include reimbursement of legal costs. Which is what the bloke in the link you posted is saying. I have no issue with that.
I want insurance to insure me in case I am taken to court in an effort to apportion blame for the actual accident. Those costs (for both parties), should I lose, would have to be bourne by me; hence the need for insurance. Being on the losing side, according to the folk in your link, will cost me money.
They are all quotes from insurance companies with regards their legal cover. The three legal cover policies you have with your insurance won't be covering your legal expenses if you are at fault.
No, it's the same. I understand what it's for, I don't understand why I need more than one policy.
You don't. Use the one in the link I posted in the second post.
I'm yet to find a "legal cover" policy that will cover if you are at fault. In the event of an accident that is your fault, your insurance company will fight the third parties claim because they are protecting their money.
If it's not you're fault they won't have to pay out so won't be interested in pursuing the third party for your out of pocket expenses, this is where "legal cover" comes in.
I'm questioning the need for more than one legal protection policy, nothing else.
The free service that was linked to may or may not be beneficial, but I don't think I'll use it at the moment.
Honestly I've no idea if the paid for ones do. I'd speak to one of your insurers.
As it's a separate policy from the actual vehicle insurance you could arrange for one to cover you in any vehicle you drive, providing they don't insist on it being tied to one vehicle insurance policy.
But all that aside, why pay for any when the free one will do the job, they even cover me on the bike, unless it states in you legal cover that it covers you if it's your fault... which would be a result we'd all like a piece of.
Soooo. Why is it legal to sell this, essentially useless, insurance?
No idea. But as the insurance companies make money on it, as long as other people are paying, it helps keep the premiums down.
I wouldn't shout to loud about it, or they'll spread the lost revenue over every policy they sell.
Funnily enough, my insurance is due next month so I've been getting quotes. The cheapest quote so far included the (no fault) legal cover in their quote, which I was able the remove and get an even cheaper quote.
Oddly Flux aint the cheapest, not far off but their cheapest didn't include third party cover for driving other vehicles.
I naively bought one of these policies when insuring a 3 ltr laguna some years ago, needed to claim on it when a rover skidded into me in the snow, Its a long and sorry story so wo'nt recount it but the long and short of it was the company/policy was a total waste of money, if its not an open and shut case with no hastle they will drop it like a hot brick. If you insure through a broker and you really want one of these policies then they should be able to arrange it to relate to any vehicle you are driving at the time.
Comment