I could really used some advice from someone who knows what they are talking about.
A couple weeks ago I got nailed for driving without insurance in toronto. So basically I have 2 cars, one I usually use for the winter, although I'm going to start using it year-round, and then I have a summer car.
I took the insurance off my winter car in the spring not that long ago, and put it on my summer car... to be clear the policy is the same policy, same number.. I just have both cars in their database and when I want it switched I let them know, there is a small price difference but very close. Anyways I was driving the summer car and it was insured, the car broke down and I had to have it towed to a mechanic shop. I had an important meeting the next day and decided to drive my winter vehicle without calling for them to switch over the insurance.
On my way down just before I got where I was going, traffic had me stop right next to a police car on the side of the road who was scanning peoples plates, mine came up no insurance and he pulled me over. He told me straight up that his computer had the ability to see if someone had insurance or not and his computer lead him to believe that I didnt have insurance on my car. I was charged with "operate motor vehicle without insurance" and also my plate sticker was expired(actually I think thats why he ran my plates to begin with, or so he said).
So I'm looking for advice I have a court date early next month. Anyways, when I talked to my father he mentioned that I should be covered even though my insurance was on my summer car, that I should still be covered under my car insurance, atleast for liability... when I brought this problem up in a porsche forum someone else said the same thing... I will copy and paste what he said..
"As far as I know he did not break any laws. You need to have valid insurance, which he did. For example you can drive and uninsured vehicle (a friends car for example), as long as you have your own insurance and the pink slip.
I'm not sure if he told the officer this or not, but it is reverse onus on the driver to prove he is insured. He could have satisfied he officer by showing his other pink slip.
The issue for him would be with insurance if he cashed the uninsured car. The insurance company would likely deny the claim because they know he took that specific car off insurance. I do believe he is in compliance with the compulsory insurance act for 3rd party liability.
I would have him bring proof of insurance to the crown at his first appearance and they should drop the charge or at least plead to the no pink slip charge rather than the no insurance charge."
Also he said later in the thread to a response to someone else Maybe I was confusing in my first reply. Let me try to clarify.
Insurance companies want you to insure every vehicle (for many reasons, including calculating risk and of course charging you more per vehicle). However, to satisfy the law (police) you simply have to prove you have a valid insurance policy. If I'm driving a friends vehicle or have just purchased a vehicle I can satisfy the law by surrendering a valid pink slip with my name on it. It does not need to be for that vehicle. This is called uninsured vehicle policy and is for rental cars, newly purchased vehicles (7 days) and using someone else's car (insured or not). This coverage is for liability and to satisfy the law.
Of course insurance companies do not want you to abuse this policy because they charge you extra for every vehicle you own.
In your specific case you both agreed not to drive your vehicle while in storage. If you smashed the car they could successfully argue not to pay for repair. However I believe you have still satisfied the law by having a policy and you would also likely be covered for 3rd party liability while driving uninsured vehicles (unless of course your specific storage policy states you are not covered).
I hope this is clear. You have not broken the law. You might have violated your policy details but not the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
So yeah, can someone weigh in on if this is true or not? Part of me thinks that maby this is how things *used* to work but maby not anymore?
I sent an email to my insurance broker to ask if I "theoretically" would be coverd to drive someone elses uninsured vehicle with my insurance, atleast for liability. I am waiting to hear back, if I am... I will breathe a HUGE sigh or relief.
I know I messed up and should have called to have the insurance put on it, every time I had gotten the insurance switched over in the past it usualy took 2-3 days for it to get put on, but I didn't relise that in a pinch you could get them to put it on same day if you specifically asked for it. I should have done that and I will do that in the future, but I'm really hoping that when I go to my court date I can show proof that I personally was insured, and that I got insurance on the car the very next day.
Also if weigh in on this part arn't actually 100%(ie its just an opinion that you think is the case, please let me know thats the case.. I really appreciate the help!
Its down near the bottom, but essentially what it says is:
"Does my automobile insurance policy provide any coverage when I drive
someone elseÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s car?
Under certain circumstances, yes. A Temporary Substitute Automobile is one that you
are using while your vehicle is being repaired or serviced (or when your car has been
The policy of the owner of the vehicle you are driving is primary (that is, itÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s the first in
line to respond to claims). Your policy would be called upon to pay only if the other
vehicle did not have insurance or if the limits were insufficient to pay a judgment.
There is no coverage for damage to the vehicle itself, unless it can be proven that you
were legally responsible for the damage.
It is important not to remove insurance coverage from a vehicle that has been
destroyed or stolen before it has been replaced by another vehicle. By doing so, you
would be eliminating the benefit provided for the temporary substitute vehicle that you
may be operating at the time.
Coverage also applies to private passenger vehicles other than those described in the
insurance policy when driven by you or your spouse. Your policy will cover Third Party
Liability, Accident Benefits, Uninsured Automobile and Direct Compensation ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€œ Property
Examples of when this coverage might be triggered if you are in a collision are:
- you are driving a rental car on vacation;
- you are driving a friendÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s car at his or her invitation;
- you have borrowed a visitorÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s car for a trip to the store."
Thanks, in this case it mentions driving someone elses car, and in my case I drove my own second car, small difference, I don't see how that could make it any different, if anything that should be better for me, but likely not difference either way.
https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/auto ... 7_00-3.pdf
2.2.2 Temporary Substitute Automobile
A temporary substitute automobile is an automobile that is temporarily used while
a described automobile is out of service. The described automobile must not be in
use by anyone insured by this policy, because of its breakdown, repair, servicing,
theft, sale or destruction.
Coverage for a temporary substitute automobile is provided under the automobile
policy of the owner of the temporary substitute automobile. However, this policy
may provide coverage above and beyond coverage that the owner has purchased.
The following coverages apply to a temporary substitute automobile if a premium
is shown for them on the Certificate of Automobile Insurance for the described
automobile that is temporarily out of service:
P Accident Benefits,
P Uninsured Automobile, and
P Direct Compensation - Property Damage.
If you have purchased optional Loss or Damage Coverages on a described
automobile and it is temporarily out of service, there are special conditions about
this coverage for temporary substitute automobiles. These conditions are
explained in Section 7 - Loss or Damage Coverages of this policy.
Special Condition: A temporary substitute automobile cannot be owned by
you or by anyone living in the same dwelling as you.
The section is not concerned with whether a driver is insured---driver coverage is relevant for liability coverage under the Insurance Act provisions. However, section 2(1) of the CAIA is restricted to owners of motor vehicles.
For quick reference, here's the section again:
2. (1) Subject to the regulations, no owner or lessee of a motor vehicle shall,
(a) operate the motor vehicle; or
(b) cause or permit the motor vehicle to be operated,
on a highway unless the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance.
So, in your case, it seems that your vehicle was not insured; you were insured as a driver (under your summer car policy), but the motor vehicle itself was not. No third party liability coverage existed on the car you were driving. Its therefore going to be quite an uphill battle for you to win on this charge.
If you're wondering how your insurance provider would look at this situation (which isn't necessarily completely relevant to the ticket in question but relevant towards some of the questions you're bringing up), they'd say you can't "borrow" your own vehicle. You can't borrow vehicles from anyone in your household nor can they borrow yours unless the situation has been disclosed to the proper insurance provider, whether they are friend, family, etc. Anyone in your house with a license must be listed as an occasional driver or fill out an excluded driver endorsement form saying they will never drive that vehicle. Providers realize that the chances are high that you'd be borrowing another vehicle in the same household often, therefore your rates will be adjusted to reflect the driving record of those other occasional drivers. Had you needed to make a claim while driving this vehicle, you would have probably been denied.Aranate wrote: Thanks, in this case it mentions driving someone elses car, and in my case I drove my own second car, small difference, I don't see how that could make it any different, if anything that should be better for me, but likely not difference either way.
While your insurance coverage will cover you under certain circumstances (temporary coverage when selling and buying a replacement vehicle), they aren't running a 2-for-1 special on vehicles belonging to the same driver.
If they say no, then you better get a really good lawyer.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++