It seems there is still some confusion between a vehicle being validly insured to be kept on the public highway (which enables it to be taxed, and means ANPR cameras are not alerted), and a particular driver being insured to drive it at a particular time. The driver of a vehicle may not be insured to drive it (e.g. because they are not listed in the policy, or they are drunk, or they have told lies in their proposal form), but if the vehicle is validly insured then the insurance company is forced to pay out on third party claims nevertheless. The insurance company may or may not be able to get their money back afterwards from the policy-holder, or the owner, or the driver, or someone. If so, the insurance company would have to show that some degree of responsibility attaches. Allowing someone to drive/ride a vehicle which is covered under a policy of which you are the policy holder without establishing that they are insured to drive/ride it may amount to such a degree of responsibility, as far as I can see.
If not the law, then perhaps some very sharp practice in the wording of the policy. Remember it's not just an insurance policy your buying, you are making a legal agreement/contract with your insurer...something we are well aware of when buying public liability insurance.
Well, a fairly thorough skim through my car policy booklet does not create the impression that I have "insured this vehicle to be on the public highway, and that the company will pay out 3rd party claims regardless of who was driving and even whether the vehicle still belongs to me". To be fair, they do mention the possibility of suspending cover if the vehicle is sold (pending attaching the policy to a new purchase), but they don't say anything about the kind of liabilities which are the subject of this discussion. Nor do they provide string warnings about the risks of not suspending or cancelling cover if the vehicle is sold. This does not mean to say that I would want to get into an argument about it with any hope of winning against the insurance company, and whatever is enshrined in the law. I do wonder whether in this case the unfortunate previous bike owner could not have found something that he had forgotten to tell the insurer at the time the policy was taken out (non-standard exhaust perhaps?), in order to "void" the policy properly!
Contracts of insurance normally last for 365 days. If the contract is valid on day 1, it remains valid until day 365 unless it is transferred to another vehicle, or cancelled or suspended. Maybe there is some good reason why the insurance company would decline to renew cover for another year, but that does not make the cover invalid within the present year. Even if an insurance company might refuse to insure a vehicle which the policy-holder does not own (and some insurers take that line), that does not make a contract become invalid in-year.
Amusing notion, but that is not going to work. The basic third party cover legally required cannot be voided. Once an insurance company has issued a certificate of insurance and notified DVLA (electronically, nowadays) that the vehicle is covered, and so long as cover has not been withdrawn or cancelled, the insurer is fixed with third party liability regardless. And so they should be.
It seems there is still some confusion between a vehicle being validly insured to be kept on the public highway (which enables it to be taxed, and means ANPR cameras are not alerted), and a particular driver being insured to drive it at a particular time. The driver of a vehicle may not be insured to drive it (e.g. because they are not listed in the policy, or they are drunk, or they have told lies in their proposal form), but if the vehicle is validly insured then the insurance company is forced to pay out on third party claims nevertheless. The insurance company may or may not be able to get their money back afterwards from the policy-holder, or the owner, or the driver, or someone. If so, the insurance company would have to show that some degree of responsibility attaches. Allowing someone to drive/ride a vehicle which is covered under a policy of which you are the policy holder without establishing that they are insured to drive/ride it may amount to such a degree of responsibility, as far as I can see.[/QUOTE] The crux of the issue in question is as you put it "the insurance company having to show that some degree of responsibility attaches". Once you have sold a vehicle and advised DVLA that you are no longer responsible for that particular vehicle and parted company with both the vehicle and means of controlling access to it the nexus between the previous owner and responsibility is tenuous because it is via DVLA records public knowledge that the previous owner or register keeper of said vehicle is no longer the keeper of that vehicle. The argument that you have allowed a person to ride said vehicle without establishing that they have insurance is tenuous unless it is the actual day they pick the vehicle up from the vendor, after that the access to the vehicle is controlled by the new owner and it would be difficult to establish responsibility re access to the vehicle. Taking the case where somebody didn't cancel the insurance and the bike changes hands several times without being insured and is involved in a 3rd party claim would under current law the previous insured owner still be liable 2 or 3 owners down the chain?
Good point. The issue (as far as the unfortunate bike seller in Scotland is concerned) is whether he did or did not bear responsibility, and it must be arguable that he did not bear enough responsibility to justify him having to reimburse the insurance company. No doubt he will be arguing just that. Indeed he notified DVLA of the transfer, but he did not notify his insurance company. We are simply assuming the media reports are accurate, by the way. If insurance cover ends for any reason, the insurance company always notifies DVLA automatically; but if a vehicle registration is transferred DVLA does not notify the insurance company. Perhaps the seller wrongly assumed they would. It would be quite helpful if DVLA did notify insurance companies about transfers - a lot more helpful than somehow automatically cancelling insurance policies. The whole issue reminds me of commercial leases of properties. You sign a lease for 20 years, after a few years you assign it to another tenant, and the property passes through several hands eventually to a tenant who fails to pay the rent. The landlord's claim for the back rent lies against you as the original lessee, notwithstanding that you moved on years ago and forgot about the lease - you are responsible.
given that experian's databases link everything together there is absolutely no reason that the insurance companies can not tap into these as a trigger point to avoid these issues arising in the first instance it could also be argued that the insurance company was negligent in not keeping tabs on its contingent insurable risks given it was on various data bases they had access to the knowledge that a disqualified rider was operating a bike insured by themselves.
No, once the contract has come into existence, the insurance company does not have the slightest interest in or obligation to check on anything. They have no need to keep tabs on the extent of any risks - until the time for renewal comes around next year, or until an incident happens and a claim is made.
Thank you. It doesn't apply to renewals &c either but the principle has a continuing relevance to the parties' conduct after the contract had been made. For us in particular on this forum, I'd have thought it a sensible principle in regards to our bike insurance.
Like I said in the earlier thread (some months ago) I did the same with an old bike that I'd just sold. I had a few months left on the insurance and thought that rather than cancel the policy and have to pay the £30 'admin fee' and lose another years NCD I'd let it run to renewal. It wasn't till I read the legal section in Fast Bikes were there was a similar story that I quickly took the £30 hit and lost a years extra NCB. What I'm saying is the guy who is being featured in the story may well have done the same thing inadvertently, controversial I know as we all hate MCE who are obviously the enemy here.
