No commuting cover on insurance, accident whilst commuting

[rG-tom]

Hey,

Quick one for a friend:

Car was part of a multi car policy, and the person who set it up made an admin error and managed to not click Social domestic and pleasure + COMMUTING, just SDP....purely an admin error given the cost difference is very minimal anyway (£10-20?), and the car was indeed used daily for commuting.

They were involved in a crash about 6 months ago on the way from work to home, where they were side impacted on a roundabout from a car joining that from the left as they were going straight over. no witnesses, and they have completely fabricated a different version of events, but it has gotten to the stage where investigators are involved as the insurance company really don't want to lose this case. When the driver was reading through their policy again though they have realised commuting is excluded on the policy, which hadn't been noticed before.

What is the likelihood of them not paying out given this, especially given the minimal cover price difference it can't be looked at as trying to deliberately defraud the insurance company, and not paying out at all on such a small technicality seems a very unjust result?

The insurance company so far have not mentioned anything about this, even though the statement from the driver explicitly said they were driving home from work on their usual route at the time, so perhaps worrying about nothing but I can see why they would be.

Thanks guys,

Tom.

 

[Morba]

They were not at fault, so it shouldn't matter should it?

 

[rG-tom]

If they lose, or it goes 50:50....which given how it's dragging out is entirely possible, there is no evidence, just word on word.

 

[rodenal]

I suspect it will either go unnoticed, charged on top of the policy or the third party claim will be paid with an argument over the policy car damages. As it's a relatively minor detail I can't see a situation where they could possibly justify not paying out though....eventually

 

[Hades]

It may only be a small cost difference but it does affect the risk profile that the insurer accepts when the person takes out the policy. So technically they were unisured. If the insurer realises that, and if there is a payout required (either 100% or 50/50) then they will not cover it and the driver would need to do so.

 

[SGWills]

more than likely the insurance company will correct the policy to show the usage as SDP+C and charge the policy holder, claim i would have thought would not be affected

 

[LeMson]

In their version of events have they stated "I was on my way home from work"? Or is it just I was travelling on such a road at such a time?

 

[rG-tom]

In their version of events have they stated "I was on my way home from work"? Or is it just I was travelling on such a road at such a time?

explicitly says work, which shows they're not trying to hide anything i suppose

 

[Dogbreath]

It may only be a small cost difference but it does affect the risk profile that the insurer accepts when the person takes out the policy. So technically they were unisured. If the insurer realises that, and if there is a payout required (either 100% or 50/50) then they will not cover it and the driver would need to do so.

They are not "technically uninsured" at all.

 

[Clarkey]

They are not "technically uninsured" at all.

Surely it's pretty clear cut, you're either insured for commuting or you are not. No different to business use or hire and reward.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Surely it's pretty clear cut, you're either insured for commuting or you are not. No different to business use or hire and reward.

When an insurer provides cover they are obligated under the road traffic act to provide third party cover irrespective of anything like this. So they were not technically uninsured.

 

[Burnsy2023]

When an insurer provides cover they are obligated under the road traffic act to provide third party cover irrespective of anything like this. So they were not technically uninsured.

Indeed.

Whether they will cover a claim from the policy holder is rather different to legal requirements.

 

[Ste]

Some SDP policies include commuting to and from a single place of work, in those instances the '+C' bit is usually if you're using the car to go between a bunch of offices or are a sales rep or whatever.

E&OE... but I think my Admiral policy was like that... going back a bit though!

 

[Matt82]

if the fella was on the ball, surely hed have reported the accident as "i was on the way to the shops" rather than coming home from work

 

[Haggisman]

if the fella was on the ball, surely hed have reported the accident as "i was on the way to the shops" rather than coming home from work

Except there's a world of difference between what could conceivably have been a simple mistake not ticking a box (granted, this is still no excuse), and blatantly lying about the accident circumstances.

 

[robj20]

Surely it's pretty clear cut, you're either insured for commuting or you are not. No different to business use or hire and reward.

It all depends weather or not you made a genuine mistake, Insurance companys cant just decide to not pay out unless it was a fact that would have ment them not insuring you in the first place.

 

[merlin]

It all depends weather or not you made a genuine mistake, Insurance companys cant just decide to not pay out unless it was a fact that would have ment them not insuring you in the first place.

Not so.

 

[merlin]

I'm with Clarkey on this one - technically there was no cover for commuting - it's really as simple as that.

In this particular case it seems the insurers have missed the policy use excludes commuting - probably too late for them to haul their asses out of the claim now - so the policyholder should be safe.

Take on board the comments over insurers ultimately still having to pay under RTA legislation even if they decline indemnity for a claim - but this doesn't actually constitute being insured.

If in this instance the commuting HAD triggered a rejection of the claim (let's assume for a moment the insurers being being highly stubborn) then point blank that vehicle was not insured at that moment in time because the use of the vehicle fell outside the policy parameters. Fact the insurer might still end up paying out an innocent TP due to RTA leglisation doesn't then make the vehicle insured - it maintains the vehicle as uninsured and indemnity declined but the insurer still forced to make a payment OUTSIDE of the contract of insurance. This is further evidenced by the insurer then having the right to recover it's forced outlay from the policyholder - an insurer can only do that when there was no valid insurance in effect for the accident.

Put it like this - if the Police rang the insurer and said this person is on the way to work and the insurer said there's no cover for commuting - the Police can easily take action against the driver for driving without insurance same as the Police can take action against a taxi driver without the required hire/reward policy use.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Put it like this - if the Police rang the insurer and said this person is on the way to work and the insurer said there's no cover for commuting - the Police can easily take action against the driver for driving without insurance same as the Police can take action against a taxi driver without the required hire/reward policy use.

I don't think that's the case, but I'd need to talk to a Traffic officer about that one.

 

[merlin]

I don't think that's the case, but I'd need to talk to a Traffic officer about that one.

No insurance means: -

invalid insurance through uninsured use
invalid insurance through driver not included
invalid insurance through making a false declaration
or just absolutely no insurance on the car whatsoever

It's also an offence under the RTA to lie to an insurer, but the Police prefer the IN10 - it's easier.