Appeared as a witness in a court case recently (was not called). It concerned a collision. It emerged that the middle-aged defendant had never had a driver's licence, yet he had insurance cover and the insurer paid up. Something wrong, surely?
|
Presumably the insurer paid out to the third party, which they would be obligated to do. It is their responsibility to ensure that those whose risks they cover are legally entitled to drive, and if they just take the applicants word for it it is their tough luck if the person is lying.
I could not imagine their unlicenced client got any more than advice to take a running jump if he tried to recover his losses, however.
|
|
|
Not half.
Presuming Defendant was appearing in connection with a driving offence? then:
Proviso on any Certificate of Insurance are the words that cover is only effected if "the driver holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held one and not presently disqualified from obtaining a licence"
Possible false declaration to obtain Insurance through non disclosing no Licence.
Pulling the wool over Plod's peepers as Licence would be required to prove entitlement to drive and later production at Court to be endorsed etc.
DVD
|
|
|
