A friend had the misfortune to be involved in an accident on New Year's Eve, in which he suffered an epileptic episode (a blackout rather than seizure) which caused a fairly serious collision with a third party. Both vehicles written off, neither driver hurt thankfully.
In this case, he's obviously liable without being 'at fault'. The problem lies in the fact that the car had failed its already 3 month overdue MOT just three days previously, on 1 point (some welding needed for one of the sills). It was booked in to have the work done on Jan 3rd, but was legally unroadworthy at the time of the accident. A stupid risk, yes, but the car was virtually never driven so the timing could hardly have been unluckier.
Is there any chance whatsoever of his insurance company paying out under these circumstances? My friend's car was a worthless banger but replacing the other vehicle will cost in the region of £8k, a sum he can ill-afford having recently lost his job.
|
Not wanting to sound unsympathetic to your friend, but let this unfortunate episode be a lesson to all those who drive without an MOT.
Your friend was very unlucky but could have come off a lot worse - as could the others involved!
I doubt there's any chance of his insurers paying out under these circumstances especially if he hadn't informed them of his condition.
|
|
|
|
There was a recent thread on having a claim where there was no MOT. Can't remember the conclusion, but have a search.
|
|
|
I don't want to heap bad news on top of everything else but if this was an epileptic attack then I think he will find that the DVLA will relieve him of his licence until such time as his epilepsy is proved to be under control. IIRC I think you have to demonstrate that you have been free from episodes for a year to get it back. Assuming that is that he has informed them.
As you say, under the circumstances the thing to be thankful for is that no-one was seriously hurt and only some expensive metal got bent.
Cockle
|
Didn't someone authoritatively state on here recently:-
'You do not owe your insurance company a duty to MOT your car'
Note, those are not quotes, and I only vaguely recall the statement.
E&OE !
|
Mark is obviously top man for this but isn't it true that insurance law/arrangements mean that they have to pay out to the third party but may have some right to reclaim from you if you were shown to be knowingly using an unroadworthy vehicle.
MM
|
An Insurance Company cannot restrict its cover in respect of third party Insurance required under Sect 145 RTA 1988 because of the provisions of section 147 which state that the age, or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle and also the condition of the vehicle shall have no effect. Which means the Insurance should pay for the other vehicle, but if you have Comprehensive then you may find the Insurance Company may not pay out on your own claim because of negligence factors you mention.
No doubt Mark, when he has time, will give a fuller explanation.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Presumably you don\'t need me to mention that driving without an MOT is dumb and driving in an unroadworthy car is even dumber ? Well, I\'ll mention it anyway.
To go through your points in order...
>>Both vehicles written off, neither driver hurt thankfully.
If both cars were written off I would suspect that there is a fair chance of a late-appearing injury claim - perhaps whiplash or some other similar injury. My point being that it is premature to assume that the extent of the claim is going to be the value of the car. In any case I would expect loss of use and other such expenses to appear.
>>but was legally unroadworthy at the time of the accident. A
>>stupid risk, yes, but the car was virtually never driven so
>>the timing could hardly have been unluckier.
A stupid risk, yes. No \"but\". Just stupid. I am only replying because the guy\'s life seems to be falling apart on him, but frankly I have little sympathy for this incident.
However, you need to be careful using the word \"unroadworthy\". Precisely it may or may not have been roadworthy, but it would not have passed an MOT. This is not the same thing. His insurance does not say that it must have an MOT, just that it must be roadworthy - the difference is therefore important. More than that, showing it would not have passed an MOT is not enough. They will have to justify \"unroadworthy\" to seek reimbursement.
You really need a solicitor for this one, and probably a Motor Engineer as well. Your friend is going to get not more sympathy from the courts than he does from me, after all the thing had been un-MOT\'d for three months and he knowingly drove it, however the insurance company are not in that position of luxury.
Why does a car need sills ? (I really don\'t know). What impact could they have had on the incident ? Do they make any difference to the handling of the car ? Were there any other faults on the car which would have been relevant to the incident ?
Is there any chance whatsoever of his insurance company paying out under these circumstances?
Yes, they will pay out. However, what you need to avoid is them then suing your friend for reimbursement or cancelling his insurance.
And he really does need to avoid the insurance company cancelling his insurance - with epilepsy and cancelled insurance he would be off the road forever.
So, go find a solicitor experienced in these things. Allow him to steer you to a Motor Engineer. Do it now and make sure that the car is preserved in its current state until you have done so.
Do try and persuade him not to drive again without an MOT, or even a doctor\'s certificate saying that he is healthy enough. Next time he might hit me or mine.
|
My insurance is coming up for renewal shortly and I was having a read of the policy document and was disturbed to find that having a valid MOT was a requirement and not having one would invalidate my insurance...... Not nice.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Have a look in the Motoring Section of today's Times (Sorry HJ I like a bit of variety on Sundays hence no Telegraph today) on page 6. In summary it says:
The Association of British Insures says that insurance pays in full 3rd party claim in this circumstances, very few will exclude (check policy) payment if MOT no in force, they will pay a reduced settlement to reflect the fact that the vehicle does not have an MOT. Driving without it is a criminal offence but this is a police matter, not an insurance one.
Best of luck
Old Bill
|
Further to Marks reply.
This may sound obvious but how is insurance "cancelled", in what typical circumstances, and what are the consequences? It sounds like a very particular legal term.
|
If you are in breach of policy conditions then the insurance company can cancel your policy, although this will not usually absolve them of responsibility for the accident.
You will see on all proposal forms the question along the lines of "Have you ever had insurance declined or cancelled ? If yes, state why".
It would then be unusual for them to touch you with a barge pole and if you throw in something like epilepsy as an added complication you will be in real difficulties.
At the very least, subject to *huge* premium loadings.
|
|
Many thanks to all who replied, and Mark in particular. Even a part-settlement of this claim by his insurers will come as a big relief financially. He hasn't the slightest intention of taking any kind of risk in future (as you can imagine), and I agree that it's a salutory lesson to all those who adopt a casual approach to the rules. A car is either road legal or it isn't.
|
|
As well as a reminder not to bend rules regarding an MOT test, it also serves to remind people with medical conditions whether they should even be on the road in any vehicle. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but working as an accident researcher, last year i investigated a case where a driver suffering from diabetes had somehow managed to get on a dual carriageway the WRONG WAY. He hit another car head on at an estimated 35-40mph. Being in a brand new Mondeo, he suffered only very minor injuries, whilst I witnessed the fire and rescue team take 45 minutes to cut out the woman from the other vehicle (a D reg escort) with massive head injuries. Fortunately she survived. It may be a tiny, tiny risk to drive with such a condition, but it's a risk not worth taking.
|
Afraid I can't agree - and I don't understand how the driver's diabetes can necessarily be directly related to the accident or the circumstances under which it happened. Sounds more like gross incompetence. It would be a very harsh policy indeed that refused the personal freedom that a driving licence represents to those with medical conditions that are effectively controlled by drugs.
In my friend's case, his epileptic condition was diagnosed more than two years ago, and his licence removed for the statutory 1 year period, during which he suffered no more episodes. He had since been driving for a year with no ill effects and the insurance company were aware of the condition.
|
I'm guessing that the diabetes incident was a case of hypoglaecemic attack. I recall studying cases of this during my criminal law studies, it is a type of fit/collapse.
Presumably your friend will have to declare his second epileptic incident and his licence will be re-suspended?
|
|
That's right. If the current prescription can no longer keep the condition completely repressed at all times, the licence is re-suspended. Another full year on alternative drugs, without incident, will be required before he gets it back again (and in practice, he'll wait at least 18 months).
|
|
|
|
|
The diabetes was directly related - the driver was having some sort of fit/seizure (not sure of the exact medical details) that led to him not really knowing what planet he was on.
|
|
|
|
|
