By Cedric E. Stephens, ContributorQUESTION: OUR daughter is 18 years old. She has just completed high school and is now learning to drive. A private instructor is teaching her. Sometimes she drives our car with either my husband or myself. A few weeks ago, I visited the offices of our insurers. A lady there told me that our motor policy does not cover learner drivers. It insures only 'mature' drivers. Private lessons plus 'on the road supervision' from my husband and myself is, I believe, the ideal mix to develop a responsible, young driver. Our insurers do not agree. What should we do?
J.T.S., Kingston 6.
ANSWER: WHEN I began to write this column - nearly five years ago - I never imagined that my family would have had an insurance problem; least of all, that I would get this question from my wife. We were faced with an unexpected situation. The downside of this could cost thousands of dollars and lots of inconvenience. Persons who have been involved in motor accidents know exactly what I am talking about.
Insurers play the numbers game and according to statistics are right to avoid 'young' drivers. Most of them would fall in the 11 to 40-age bands. Driving permits are granted at 17 years. Those groups cause more than half of all types of accidents. Persons aged 21 and 30 are involved in one out of every four mishaps. This is not very different from what happens in developed countries. Vehicle accidents in those countries are the leading cause of deaths for youngsters between 15 and 24.
What about drivers with learners' permits? Their experience is very different from those of 'young drivers'.
Drivers with provisional licences are not accident-prone. They drive more carefully than those of us with full licences. Holders of full licences are involved in 30 times as many injury accidents as those with provisional permits. Those in the latter group are in two out of every 100 accidents. Persons in the former are in more than 60 of every 100 accidents. Even if 20 per cent of the 'not known' category were learner drivers, the accident frequency of the learners would be lower than those with full licences. If fully licensed drivers had the same accident record as those with learners' permits, motor premiums would be much lower.
The Duke Street insurance rep. knows zilch about her company's motor policy. I doubt if she has ever read one of its motor contracts. Our policy says the classes of persons authorised to drive are: (a) the policyholders (b) any person who is driving with the policyholders' order or - permission. The person referred to in (b) should, however, be 'permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations - and is not disqualified by a court of law'. In the present case, this means that our 18-year-old should hold a provisional licence. Further, that she should comply with the conditions under which her licence was issued. That means that the car should have 'L plates', she should be supervised by a fully licensed driver and that there should be no other person in the vehicle other than herself and the person supervising her. There is nothing in the policy that suggests, either explicitly or implicitly, that learner drivers are excluded. My authorities on insurance law say if something is not excluded then it is covered.
So, many thanks to the very special woman in my life. I can continue to help teach our daughter to drive. In the event that something untoward happens, I am very confident that our motor insurance will be in place - whatever the Duke Street lady believes.
Cedric E. Stephens provides advice on risks and insurance. If you need free advice or information, write to the Financial Editor or contact Mr. Stephens directly at aegis@cwjamaica.com
