On Feb 24, 9:31*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 24/02/2012 08:50, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:51:44 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

That requires that the named driver is a regular user of the car.

Define: "regular user".

You don't really expect an insurance company to set that in stone, so
that people can manipulate the use to qualify do you?

If they use "reasonable" they have to lay down what they deem as
"resaonable" otherwise it's what "the person on the street" would
take a s "reasonable"...

The insurance industry is not noted for making decisions that the man on
the street would.

We very rarerly use the others car and what use there is not
"regular".

... will expect that the named driver has reasonable use of the car.

Stop wriggling. That is not the same as "a regular user of the car".

I'm not 'wriggling' I am simply relaying a recent discussion on the
radio in which a chap from one of the insurance companies used both terms..

...

What is reasonable, the insurers will decide,

No if push comes to shove it's what the courts decide. "Resonable"
has no legal definition it's what the "man on the street" would think
as "reasonable".

At best, it will be what the financial ombudsman decides, unless you
think it is a realistic expectation that a 17 yo who is trying to save
money on insurance will take on an insurance company in the Courts.
Meanwhile, he will be guilty of driving without insurance.

Colin Bignell

No he f===ing-hell won't if it's being contested in the courts. The
insurance companies hold all the cards, it is for them to make the
distinctions clear else a court should favour the generally-acepted
term as used by a commoner. It's precisely the airy-fairy
defenintions the insurance companies use to devalue claims. They are
CROOKS! Take them to court, everytime, they'll pay up and pay costs
at the door.