[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. :)