In today's Telegraph someone asks advice about pursuing an insurance claim against another motorist, and then discovering that he had no insurance cover himself for the particular motor bike he was riding. The response was NO, because he risked prosecution.
Of course, there may be more to this case than was revealed in the paper. But in principle, it is possible for the insurance company to refuse a claim without the policyholder automatically having commited an offence? I
For example, one insurance condition is that the vehicle is maintained in roadworthy condition. Does that mean that whenever a car is stopped in a police check and found to have say a faulty light or the wrong kind of child seat,, the driver is also prosecuted for driving without insurance?
Insurance to drive a vehicle, and insurance cover for that vehicle, are different things surely?
|
It gets a mention on here fairly frequently that insurers cannot distance themselves from providing legal minimum third party cover. They have to pay out to third parties but if a policy condition is breached they can come back to reclaim their costs from the driver. ISTR there are one or two exceptions where the police can start proceedings for no valid insurance - where the driver has no license or is banned or is driving without the owners consent. But I think for most things the certificate of insurance, which is all that needs to be produced, doesn't have all the niggly insurers exclusions.
Martin
|
|
My scallywag of a brother in law was hit by someone, and got a large payout, and no legal comeback of any sort, despite the fact that he himself was un-insured, and the police involved were aware of this.
|
|
|
|
>>Does that mean that whenever a car is stopped in a police check and found to have say a faulty light
Does a blown bulb make it unroadworthy? Does DVD still exist on here?
|
A policy of insurance is valid for third party risks until it is cancelled in writing by the insurance company.
Most policies state that the policy holder " holds or has held a licence to drive that catagory of vehicle and is not disqalified form doing so."
So if a provisional licence holder drives other than in accordance with the provisions of their licence eg unaccompanied they are still insured as they hold a licence to drive that catagory of vehicle albeit a provisional one. Someone with an expired licence would still be covered as they 'have held'.
Techinically a vehicle with a minor defect is 'unroadworthy' however I believe the benchmark is something moresuch as defective steering or brakes. Just because a vehicle does not have a current MOT doesnt necessarily mean it is unroadworthy.
As regards the motorcyclist. If they make a civil claim against the car driver there is no requirement to reveal whether or not they were insured. However it does stick in the throat a bit that an uninsured driver can make a claim as it is my argument that they should have not been there in the first place. I suppose it is one of those anomilies of British Llaw similar to trespassers or burglars injuring themselves and claiming compo - the list of bizarre examples goes on!
--
Fullchat
|
True, but it's very difficult to forumlate a principle that would distinguish it from, say, driving at 31mph in a built up area when someone suddenly pulls out into a driver's path and there's nothing he can do to prevent the accident. Had he been doing 30 for the last five minutes and not breaking the law, he would be 146 yards down the road and out of danger, but you can't argue that the other driver should be absolved of responsibility for his lack of care in pulling out for an essentially random factor.
Criminal law is (quite rightly) happy to punish both sides in such a situation; civil law has to choose between the two and so comes down against the driver whose actions were the operative cause of the collision.
|
|
|
|
Does DVD still exist on here?
He most certainly does.
|
That's basically what I believed to be the case.
The question in the paper did not actually explain in what way the owner 's insurance did not cover the bike. Obviously it could have been the case that he was totally uninsured to drive anything. But the question read as if it was more like a technicality, meaning he was insured to drive but had no comprehensive cover for that machine.
If so, he could have quite safely pursued a claim against the other driver?
|
It is as stated ,an Insurance Co cannot disclaim a claim made on a vehicle without a MOT or defect until such time as they make the policy void. There are other similar conditions that cannot be avoided and are outlined under the Road Traffic Act 1981 Section 148.
The fact that his own Insurance has expired does not preclude the person, if in the right, from pursuing a claim through the civil courts either against the driver of the other vehicle or, as from 19th January 2003, a claim direct against the Insurer of that vehicle. See:
www.tinyurl.com/adaqc
Whether a third party, other than BiB, under the circumstances outlined would push for a criminal offence of using without Insurance in my book is highly unlikely. Evidence would be required for a driver but there are cumbersome ways to find this out.
dvd
(alive,just kicking and wearing badly..)
|
DD/PG
Please remove the . after tiny to make the correct connection. {Done - DD}
dvd
|
And, of course, No Insurance is a summary offence so as long as it didn't come to light within 6 months, a prosecution would not be possible.
|
And, of course, No Insurance is a summary offence
That's no insurance to drive, not necessarly the same as some aspect of the car not being covered. Eg a company providing basic Traffic Act cover but refusing a claim for accident damage because, say, of an unnotified change in specification like alloy wheels, non-standard exhaust, forgetting to send in the up to date classic car photos, exceeding the agreed limited mileage, etc etc.
|
|
|
'No Insurance' is the only summary offence to have a 12 month limitation of proceedings as opposed to 6 months.
--
Fullchat
|
|
... which is still within the 3-year limitation on tort claims.
|
Limitation on proceedings for No Insurance is 6 months of the offence coming to the notice of the prosecutor WITHIN 3 YEARS from date of commission.
Section 6, Schedule 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
dvd
|
Right again DVD!! Just going to write 100 times - "I must check facts before opening mouth'" Now where did I get that 12 months buisness from???
--
Fullchat
|
|
Fullchat - it was also in my mind as such. I then did some research to try and disprove DVD but found he was right. You live and learn.
|
|
|
|
|
