[londons_explore]

This varies by country.

In Europe, cars are pretty personal items, and typically only insured for one or a few drivers. Lending your car to a friend for a day would typically involve hours on the phone to the insurance company and a few hundred euros of fees. There are apps (cuvva) which try to reduce this, but even so it'll probably be cheaper and less effort to call an Uber rather than borrow a friend's car.

In the USA, loaning a car to a friend or neighbor seems far more common.

[jaclaz]

Europe where? Maybe the UK.

Here in Italy insurance isn't particularly cheap, but there is normally no limitation whatever about "insured driver(s)", as long as the driver has a valid driving license the insurance covers accidents. (and yes you can lend your car to a friend without calling the insurance) and though I have no direct experience (as car owner), France and Spain afaik work the same.

[NeedMoreTea]

Most, not all, of the insurance policies I've had here in the UK cover other vehicles. If you actually read the cover, it's not ever enough for lending my mate's Tesla or 911 for a bit of Friday night hooliganism. Only once had that, and I paid significantly extra for it.

It's almost always third party only - legal requirement - cover, unless you have notified the insurance and got approval first. That would usually need you as registered owner, and paying a premium, or even higher fee for not being keeper.

So I can borrow a car, get home legally, and if I cause an accident the other parties have cover against which they can claim. That's it. If it's stolen while in my care or I drive into a tree, no cover. If it catches fire, no cover. If I bash the door on a bollard or seize the engine, no cover. No cover for any of the things that might normally happen lending the thing to a friend.

I would be very surprised to learn you get full comprehensive insurance on any borrowed vehicle. That would make insurance premiums trivial to game.

[jaclaz]

>If it's stolen while in my care or I drive into a tree, no cover. If it catches fire, no cover. If I bash the door on a bollard or seize the engine, no cover. No cover for any of the things that might normally happen lending the thing to a friend.

Yes, we are talking different things.

The one you just described is a kind of "all risk" (which is commonly called "KASKO" here), it is actually rather "rare", only some firms/businesses use it for their fleet and - sometimes - private citizens for "high range" cars (such as a Tesla or a Porsche 911 might be) that are more susceptible to vandalism or theft.

But there is still a difference seemingly.

If a car is insured for fire, it is insured for fire.

If a car is insured for theft, it is insured for theft.

The above two are NOT connected in any way to the driver.

If a car is insured for "own damages" (such as running the car into a tree) , it is insured for "own damages" and in this case there might be limitations on the drivers (or an even steeper insurance tariff/rate for a "anyone driving is covered anyway").

[NeedMoreTea]

All risk, or comprehensive as it's known here, tends to be something you age into. When younger, few can afford it, and it's often not worth it anyway when the car or motorbike is several years old and not worth so much.

Yet it's those policies that tend to cover driving other vehicles. The Third Party, Fire and Theft only policies are usually named vehicle only.

Sounds like there's quite different standard ways of doing it. :)