The usual teenage stuff, fronting, non declaration of mods.. and a crash

Fr0dders

Fr0dders

Fr0dders

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,467
Location
West Yorks
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/loc...628264.Souped_up_car_was_not_legally_insured/

Thing that caught my eye however was at the end:

The ruling means substantial damages claims now likely to be made by Mr Morris’ loved ones can only be launched against the Motor Insurers Bureau, the industry body that compensates victims of uninsured drivers.
Click to expand...

I was expecting the insurance co to pay out, then chase the policy holder in the courts for it. But it appears that they sought to get the policy voided, thus meaning now they don't have to pay out ?
 
uh. Nothing about fronting. It says he was a named driver, and hints very heavily that the reason for voiding the insurance was undeclared mods.
 
was not covered by insurance because its owner kept quiet about its modifications – a judge has ruled.
Click to expand...

insured it online, she ticked the box saying it had not been modified, London's High Court heard.
Click to expand...

However when asked whether the car had any modifications, she responded that it had “not".
Click to expand...

Mr Justice Cooke agreed material facts had not been disclosed on the insurance proposal form.

Diamond Insurance, he formally declared, was therefore entitled to “void” the policy.
Click to expand...

He said: “There cannot be the slightest doubt as to materiality as this Corsa was declared not to have been modified in any way, shape or form.”
Click to expand...

I think reason it was voided was due to the modifications not being declared. I don' think they even bothered raising the issue of possible fronting. I was also under the impression that when fronting is discovered the third-party still gets covered?
 
whitecrook said:
uh. Nothing about fronting. It says he was a named driver, and hints very heavily that the reason for voiding the insurance was undeclared mods.
Click to expand...

It doesn't hint, it says the mods were the reason.

but it was fronted as well as not declaring mods.

She insures a highly modified Vauxhall Corsa, and her son "just happens" to be driving when it crashes ? dont make me laugh

They fronted and didnt declare the mods, its just that the mods were easier to proove so they used that as the excuse to void the policy.

The judge said

"There cannot be the slightest doubt as to materiality as this Corsa was declared not to have been modified in any way, shape or form."

There is quite a large ammount of doubt as to who is the main driver however. Thats a lot harder to proove. but why it was voided doesnt really matter

I was more interested in that voiding the policy meant the insurer didnt have to pay out. I had always read from people on here the insurance co was bound by law to be liable !
 
Err, don't Diamond have to stump up the costs to the 3rd party anyway?

To be blatantly honest these cases make me think less of insurance companies than the drivers. An eBay bodykit, undoubtedly gash alloys wheels and rubbish lowering springs did not make this accident any more/less likely. The guy was obviously a tit behind the wheel and would have crashed regardless.
 
Clarkey said:
Well that's just an assumption that you made. Fortunately they don't stand up in court.
Click to expand...

No, it's not an assumption.

The article doesn't mention that fronting was the reason why the insurance was invalid, whether the courts do or not was not what I was implying.
 
Presumably they only need one reason to void the insurance policy and the mods are much easier to prove. I imagine, if the car was unmodified, he would have been done for fronting.

I'd dearly love to give both of them a good kick in the nads
 
Joshy said:
Err, don't Diamond have to stump up the costs to the 3rd party anyway?

To be blatantly honest these cases make me think less of insurance companies than the drivers. An eBay bodykit, undoubtedly gash alloys wheels and rubbish lowering springs did not make this accident any more/less likely. The guy was obviously a tit behind the wheel and would have crashed regardless.
Click to expand...

Another one who doesnt understand statistics

Put it this way, you set up Joshy Insurance Ltd. From your first 100 customers, 50 are gingers and 50 have dark hair. After the first year, 49 of the 50 gingers have crashed, but only 2 of the people with dark hair have. You get a new customer with ginger hair, do you charge him more than one with dark hair?
 
iaind said:
Presumably they only need one reason to void the insurance policy and the mods are much easier to prove. I imagine, if the car was unmodified, he would have been done for fronting.

I'd dearly love to give both of them a good kick in the nads
Click to expand...

This

its just a lot easier to proove the mods so thats the reason they chose to use in court.
 
Joshy said:
Err, don't Diamond have to stump up the costs to the 3rd party anyway?

To be blatantly honest these cases make me think less of insurance companies than the drivers. An eBay bodykit, undoubtedly gash alloys wheels and rubbish lowering springs did not make this accident any more/less likely. The guy was obviously a tit behind the wheel and would have crashed regardless.
Click to expand...

Having a 'gash ebay bodykit, rims and lowering' is an indication to the insurance company that the driver is going to drive like a tit, thus the declaration of said modifications pushes the premium up to accomadate the increased risk.

So yeah, it kinda does.

Someone with a perfectly standard one pays less, presumably due to standard ones are less prone to having accidents / having stuff stolen off them as oppose to bodykitted up ones.

I agree that it totally sucks for the completely innocent third party but you need to draw a line somewhere.
 
Joshy said:
Err, don't Diamond have to stump up the costs to the 3rd party anyway?

To be blatantly honest these cases make me think less of insurance companies than the drivers. An eBay bodykit, undoubtedly gash alloys wheels and rubbish lowering springs did not make this accident any more/less likely. The guy was obviously a tit behind the wheel and would have crashed regardless.
Click to expand...

Dont make me laugh, had the insurance been obtained legally it would have had A) had the mods declared and B) had the young teenage driver as the main driver / policy holder

Upon reading this, the insurer would have prompty charged him a small fortune expecting him to crash ...

which is exactly what he did. Insurnace premiums for this age group are high for a reason.
 
Those modifications would not have almost certainly not caused diamond to refuse to insure the guy. I guessing a few hundred quid on top of his already sky high premium, in the grand scheme of things not much of a biggy - He would still have still ended up crashing.
 
on a side note, i think the insurance probably knew it was modded, due to the previous owners insurance details. They just wait for a claim then say were not paying due to undisclosed mods.

If someone buys a car thats modded, which has been previously legally insured and then lies, how often do the insurance company decline the policy there and then ? They know due to the databases that the cars modified, yet they still insure it as unmodified.
How often do you think this happens ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom