Does anybody have a reference for that, preferably "official"? Pub debate has raised this query
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
didds
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
bungeejumper wrote:That doesn't mean that the insurance company won't come after you for recompense if your crappy brakes should result in a crash. (I'm using "you" in a general sense, obviously.)
Just that it's required to pay out to the third party without delay. It'll then send the boys round at its leisure to sequester your crown jewels.
Lootman wrote:Surely if the law says that the insurer has to maintain cover then they can't "send the boys round". Either you have insurance or you don't, and if the law says that cover cannot be denied for this reason, then the insurer is liable for such claims and not the driver.
If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 3 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is driving your vehicle and:
- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
- fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason
No cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law. In those circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgement, of any claim arising from the accident.
swill453 wrote:Lootman wrote:Surely if the law says that the insurer has to maintain cover then they can't "send the boys round". Either you have insurance or you don't, and if the law says that cover cannot be denied for this reason, then the insurer is liable for such claims and not the driver.
It may be that the terms of the policy allows them to claim back from the driver.
Mine doesn't explicitly say that about lack of MOT, but it does for drink driving:
Lootman wrote:Yes, I'd expect an insurer to be able to get out of paying a claim on behalf of a drunk driver, although it's rather rough on the third party who presumably has to sue the drunk driver, who may have no means to pay. Surely laws like the MOT mandate exist to protect innocent third parties and not guilty drivers.
swill453 wrote:Could prove a tad life-changing* if they've trashed a vintage Ferrari, or killed/maimed someone.
Lootman wrote:The liability could potentially be six or seven figures, in which case the driver would probably declare bankruptcy, leaving the insurance company holding the bag anyway.
bungeejumper wrote:That doesn't mean that the insurance company won't come after you for recompense if your crappy brakes should result in a crash.
Lootman wrote:Yes, I'd expect an insurer to be able to get out of paying a claim on behalf of a drunk driver, although it's rather rough on the third party who presumably has to sue the drunk driver, who may have no means to pay.
sg31 wrote:between 2000 and 2010, some exclusions restrictions appeared in some policies such as no cover for vehicles with no MOT, no cover if the driver was over the limit for drinking, there were others which slip my mind at the moment. When I queried these the companies stances were basically why should they provide cover if someone was breaking the law and they seemed surprised I thought they should.
Lootman wrote:sg31 wrote:between 2000 and 2010, some exclusions restrictions appeared in some policies such as no cover for vehicles with no MOT, no cover if the driver was over the limit for drinking, there were others which slip my mind at the moment. When I queried these the companies stances were basically why should they provide cover if someone was breaking the law and they seemed surprised I thought they should.
Surely though what the law says trumps what the policy says. Meaning that a clause in the policy may not be enforceable even though the driver agreed to it. Not all small print is valid.
My contact experience is more with residential leases but the principle is the same. There were quite a few clauses in the residential leases that I wrote which were contrary to codified tenants' rights. Had I attempted to enforce those clauses, say by trying to evict the tenant or assess an extra fee or fine, I probably would have failed. Of course, the tenant didn't always know that so the clauses may have been effective anyway in deterring certain behaviours. So these policy clauses may be there to frighten drivers into driving sober and testing their vehicles on time, despite being overridden by statute.
Insurers can write these exclusions, waivers or anything they want into their policies, but it doesn't necessarily mean they won't still have to pay out at least some types of claims. The laws around this exist to protect third parties and not to boost insurers' profits!
As you say, their remedy is then to sue the driver for those amounts. But I'd be willing to bet there is a non-zero correlation between drivers who drink and/or fail to get their vehicle tested, and being judgement-proof.
Return to “Cars, Driving, Motorbikes or any Transport”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests