Revoking third party cover

Dangerous Dave · 29 Jun 2010 at 21:52

Burnsy2023 said:
My memory is patchy, but I remember this coming up before on here and someone linking to a judgement which I read with interest. I can't find any of it though, but I thought it might have jogged someone's memory.

The only case I have read was a UK driver crashing at the Nurburgring, as stated by Fox the insurance company had to pay out for the 3rd party claims under the road traffic act however they then successfully took the policyholder to court to reclaim the costs as his policy didn't cover him on the Nurburgring.

[TW]Fox · 29 Jun 2010 at 21:56

Happy said:
I think you would be surprised, I'm not stating I know, but their are several departments within any insurance company that would

I suspect there is one department that would, or perhaps should, whether they do or not is another matter entirely, if every companies legal department knew everything they'd never lose a court case ever

Happy · 29 Jun 2010 at 21:59

[TW]Fox;16852386 said:
I suspect there is one department that would, or perhaps should, whether they do or not is another matter entirely, if every companies legal department knew everything they'd never lose a court case ever

I'm fully aware of that

but to make such a sweeping generalisation is a little short sighted on your part wouldn't you agree?

Burnsy2023 · 29 Jun 2010 at 22:19

[TW]Fox;16852312 said:
I've been reading through it to quote the relevent bit but its very heavy going!

I've been doing the same and I can see why law degrees are so expensive...

Trifid · 29 Jun 2010 at 22:33

Slightly related to this, I have 2 desks at work, one I am at 99.999% and another 2 miles away. I should have business cover for this? I do anyway as it's only £10 a year extra.

Gribs · 29 Jun 2010 at 22:50

Trifid said:
Slightly related to this, I have 2 desks at work, one I am at 99.999% and another 2 miles away. I should have business cover for this? I do anyway as it's only £10 a year extra.

Yes as most (if not all) policies specify one place of work if commuting. The company I work for is spread over 2 sites about 1/4 of a mile apart and I need business cover if I want to drive betweem them.

Rich_L · 30 Jun 2010 at 00:47

The most analogous case to what you are suggesting is along the lines of Telford & WBC -v- Ahmed, a criminal case regarding the offence of driving without insurance - this example (and the most common) is about the insurance of minicab drivers who are covered specifically for carrying pre-booked passengers but are specifically not covered for attending taxi stands.

The case itself is an appeal from a Magistrates Court decision and it goes into a bit of detail about how you have to consider the construction of the insurance policy and the risk it covers - if the risk is covered in the policy then the policy may be voidable and so the insurer can recover the costs from the insured - and so the driver is still technically covered by insurance. However if the risk is specifically not covered, i.e. the case above, then there is no insurance in place and even though in practice the insurer may still pay out regardless (a practice which is mentioned in the above case) then the driver is uninsured and so can be convicted for driving w/out insurance.

*edit*

As a contrast to highlight why it's pretty much case-specific, you have Sedgefield BC -v- Crowe & Crowe which was regarding driving a hackney carriage without a hackney carriage licence was vaildly insured as the terms of the policy were met by a standard driving licence which he did own (and so was acquitted)

*edit2*

Also finally (I promise lol) - bear in mind that if the insurance don't pay out then the claim will go to the MIB as an uninsured driver claim which will pay out and the costs get spread between the insurers - which perhaps explains why there is a tacit agreement amongst the insurers to pay out on claims like this as in a roundabout way they end up paying for them anyway.

The short version and essential point being, as with most issues of this nature, is that it comes down to the construction of the insurance agreement between the insured and the insured

MikeHiow · 30 Jun 2010 at 00:56

A local was recently reported by a road traffic officer during random road-side checks, for having no insurance. The reason for this, is because when the police officer asked him where he was going, his answer was work, yet he was only covered for SD&P.

Whether he was eventually prosecuted or not, I do not know.

Meridian · 30 Jun 2010 at 05:59

MikeHiow said:
A local was recently reported by a road traffic officer during random road-side checks, for having no insurance. The reason for this, is because when the police officer asked him where he was going, his answer was work, yet he was only covered for SD&P.

My understanding from my own policies is that SD&P covers you to travel to a single, normal, place of work. You get class A business use (which is usually free) if you wish to be able to travel to more than one place of work - but you must go straight there from home, not via your usual work place. And the policy may cap the number of times a year you can go to a workplace other than your usual one.

M

[TW]Fox · 30 Jun 2010 at 08:03

MikeHiow said:
A local was recently reported by a road traffic officer during random road-side checks, for having no insurance. The reason for this, is because when the police officer asked him where he was going, his answer was work, yet he was only covered for SD&P.

I dont think he was, I suspect whoever told you that was mistaken or left out the more important details. Firstly a police officer wouldnt even know, and would not really have any cause to suspect in the first place there was only SD&P in force given almost everyone has Commuting cover given its pennies extra per year and there is no real incentive to lie about it.

And secondly as we have established it does not render you uninsured.

Dangerous Dave · 30 Jun 2010 at 08:52

[TW]Fox;16853718 said:
And secondly as we have established it does not render you uninsured.

Is that the case with what the court class as uninsured ? Going by the post from Rich_L the court regarded the driver as uninsured as his policy excluded cover under the terms regardless of the fact the insurance company had to pay out initally to the 3rd party under the road traffic act.

Business cover may be trivial for travel between work sites but still clearly excluded from the policy if you do not take it.