Car seized, no insurance, but SDP certificate in force

[Noger]

No, the organisers liabilty cover covers THEM not you.

There was a case (coventry crown court ? ) that was reported in the papers about TP liabilty for property damage getting thrown out. But I always worry when nobody can ever point to the actual case details.

But yes, you can potentially be liable for personal injury or death. No amount of signed bits of paper or "volenti non fit injuria" can get you out of that. BUT you would have to show it was deliberate negligence. I know of no cases in the motorsport world, there are plenty in football/rugby etc of course.

[matty g]

Hiya folks

I have just recieved a phone call from my friend sayind that he has been to the police station to have a word and he has spoken to his insurance company who said thats a bit harsh and are going to send him out a letter for the police. and they have said that although he has to pay to get the car back etc. he should once he recieves this letter be able to claim the monies back.

It would be nice to find out the exact legality of what has happened As to help anyone else out in the future.


Cheers for all your help and i will update with any new developments

matt

[E36GUY]

Sheriff JWPepper said:

Safespeed as you bill yourself as the drivers' champion I find it slighly odd that you are spending your time trying to assist someone who has blantantly abused their insurance.

I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.

Likewise.

I have SDLP & commuting on my insurance and I know full well that if I want to use my car for business then I have to insure it as such. It costs about £40 and I can bill it back to my company.

What would have happened if this tt had flattened someone whilst delivering a pizza? No excuse for having incorrect insurance OR for ignorance.

[Noger]

matty g said:

Hiya folks

I have just recieved a phone call from my friend sayind that he has been to the police station to have a word and he has spoken to his insurance company who said thats a bit harsh and are going to send him out a letter for the police. and they have said that although he has to pay to get the car back etc. he should once he recieves this letter be able to claim the monies back.

It would be nice to find out the exact legality of what has happened As to help anyone else out in the future.


Cheers for all your help and i will update with any new developments

matt

From the details given (assuming they are correct) there was no misrepresentation. It should be pretty easy to prove you were not employed from a particular date.

So it just comes down to breach of conditions. And I wonder if there is even a specific condition, other than the duty of disclosure.

That said I think he is lucky. A pizza delivery driver's car is not exactly a great risk to insure. So I think it is material.

[stara]

E36GUY said:

Sheriff JWPepper said:

Safespeed as you bill yourself as the drivers' champion I find it slighly odd that you are spending your time trying to assist someone who has blantantly abused their insurance.

I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.

Likewise.

I have SDLP & commuting on my insurance and I know full well that if I want to use my car for business then I have to insure it as such. It costs about £40 and I can bill it back to my company.

What would have happened if this tt had flattened someone whilst delivering a pizza? No excuse for having incorrect insurance OR for ignorance.

why on earth are you calling him a tt, would someone who has a non-standard stereo fitted and not declared to their insurers be a tt too, imagine if a that tt flattened someone with a non-standard stereo fitted.

[vonhosen]

stara said:

E36GUY said:

Sheriff JWPepper said:

Safespeed as you bill yourself as the drivers' champion I find it slighly odd that you are spending your time trying to assist someone who has blantantly abused their insurance.

I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.

Likewise.

I have SDLP & commuting on my insurance and I know full well that if I want to use my car for business then I have to insure it as such. It costs about £40 and I can bill it back to my company.

What would have happened if this tt had flattened someone whilst delivering a pizza? No excuse for having incorrect insurance OR for ignorance.

why on earth are you calling him a tt, would someone who has a non-standard stereo fitted and not declared to their insurers be a tt too, imagine if a that tt flattened someone with a non-standard stereo fitted.

A non standard stereo wouldn't result in no insurance. Not being covered for the use to which it was being put at the time does result in no insurance.

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Really? Where do you get that from?

I don't believe it. The 'for this purpose' is so ill-defined as to be always grey in law.

What is the use when someone is on a trip to work (commuting) and on-route intends to drop off his girlfriend at her Aunt's (social / domestic) and post a quote to a client (business)?

Does my SDP inurance fail if I'm carrying a work toolbox?

The whole idea is barking.

[vonhosen]

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Really? Where do you get that from?

I don't believe it. The 'for this purpose' is so ill-defined as to be always grey in law.

What is the use when someone is on a trip to work (commuting) and on-route intends to drop off his girlfriend at her Aunt's (social / domestic) and post a quote to a client (business)?

Does my SDP inurance fail if I'm carrying a work toolbox?

The whole idea is barking.

It's up to the prosecution to prove you were driving on business purposes. Where they can do that & you have no business cover it's no insurance.

[Observer2]

vonhosen said:

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st October 15:35

Sorry, but ordinary principles of law suggest that view is wrong (although it appears logical). The driver may be in breach of the contract of insurance or may have misrepresented his circumstances to secure the contract of insurance. However, unless the insurer has taken steps to avoid the contract, it remains in force. The passage from Wilkinson's that I quoted confirm this is the case and there appears to be supporting case law.

A third party (the police, in this case) cannot second-guess or pre-empt the capacity of independent contracting parties (insurer and insured) to regulate their own contracts.

[safespeed]

Observer2 said:

vonhosen said:

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st October 15:35

Sorry, but ordinary principles of law suggest that view is wrong (although it appears logical). The driver may be in breach of the contract of insurance or may have misrepresented his circumstances to secure the contract of insurance. However, unless the insurer has taken steps to avoid the contract, it remains in force. The passage from Wilkinson's that I quoted confirm this is the case and there appears to be supporting case law.

A third party (the police, in this case) cannot second-guess or pre-empt the capacity of independent contracting parties (insurer and insured) to regulate their own contracts.

Not only do I believe that to be true, I also cannot imagine any other rational possibility.

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Really? Where do you get that from?

I don't believe it. The 'for this purpose' is so ill-defined as to be always grey in law.

What is the use when someone is on a trip to work (commuting) and on-route intends to drop off his girlfriend at her Aunt's (social / domestic) and post a quote to a client (business)?

Does my SDP inurance fail if I'm carrying a work toolbox?

The whole idea is barking.

It's up to the prosecution to prove you were driving on business purposes. Where they can do that & you have no business cover it's no insurance.

Hmm.

Could you please answer the question in bold? We need to know.

[Observer2]

vonhosen said:

It's up to the prosecution to prove you were driving on business purposes. Where they can do that & you have no business cover it's no insurance.

I can't see why you're being so stubborn. It's clearly open to the insurer to waive a breach - its propensity to do that cannot be second-guessed. In circumstances where no claim event has occurred and insured has a reasonable claims record, it seems quite likely that insurer would agree to waive a 'business use' breach on payment of applicable additional premium. That's quite apart from the legal fact that the insurance contract must, by definition, remain in force until it's cancelled (avoided).

[Noger]

Wot he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

vonhosen said:

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Really? Where do you get that from?

I don't believe it. The 'for this purpose' is so ill-defined as to be always grey in law.

What is the use when someone is on a trip to work (commuting) and on-route intends to drop off his girlfriend at her Aunt's (social / domestic) and post a quote to a client (business)?

Does my SDP inurance fail if I'm carrying a work toolbox?

The whole idea is barking.

It's up to the prosecution to prove you were driving on business purposes. Where they can do that & you have no business cover it's no insurance.

Since when was there ever a "prosecution" in Insurance law ? This is civil law. And anyway, insurers tend not to apply the letter of the law anyway. ABI guidelines have long stressed the need for fairness instead of rigid application of "utmost good faith".

Many insurers, who would have insured you anyway, will just charge you the extra premium. Happens quite a bit.

Edited by Noger on Monday 1st October 16:46

[Dwight VanDriver]

Paul

VH, self and other Bibs/ex Bibs, have explained that faced with the situation you describe then a report would be submitted for using the vehicle without Insurance because the certificate prohibits use for or in connection with business purposes (or at least it is assumed to contain this clause - if it doesn't then he is insured).

In any area of conflict then you will find that Plod with write to the insurance Co concerned, outlining the circumstances and asking specifically if that Company would hold themselves 'at risk' in relation to the use of the vehicle.

I am convinced that there reply would be:

HE IS NOT INSURED FOR THIRD PARTY RISKS.

dvd

[safespeed]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Paul

VH, self and other Bibs/ex Bibs, have explained that faced with the situation you describe then a report would be submitted for using the vehicle without Insurance because the certificate prohibits use for or in connection with business purposes (or at least it is assumed to contain this clause - if it doesn't then he is insured).

In any area of conflict then you will find that Plod with write to the insurance Co concerned, outlining the circumstances and asking specifically if that Company would hold themselves 'at risk' in relation to the use of the vehicle.

I am convinced that there reply would be:

HE IS NOT INSURED FOR THIRD PARTY RISKS.

dvd

Honest, DVD, I think this is absolutely fascinating.

But an insurance company cannot disclaim liability so easily. In fact I do not believe they can disclaim basic legal liability at all while a policy remains in force.

[Dwight VanDriver]

How can they be held responsible for something that have specifically prohibited.

Or are you saying as well the clause holds or has held a Driving Licence is also baloney.

....you on a wind up surely....

dvd

[Noger]

Depends on what liability you are talking about.

Firstly, there is contractual liabilty. That is the terms of the contract, under which they are liable.

Fairly easy to get out of that. Terms of use etc. But it doesn't always mean it happens, and that is where I am not in agreement with DVD, they are assuming the insurer will do a particular thing. When they may well not.

That then falls back to statutory liabilty, which is RTA. Get out of that and you are into Article 75.

But this does not mean someone is insured if they get RTA cover.

[Observer2]

Dwight VanDriver said:

How can they be held responsible for something that have specifically prohibited.

Or are you saying as well the clause holds or has held a Driving Licence is also baloney.

....you on a wind up surely....

dvd

Ye Gods. What does it take for you cops to accept you might actually be wrong.

RTA 1988 said:

151 Duty of insurers or persons giving security to satisfy judgment against persons insured or secured against third-party risks
(1) This section applies where, after a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, a judgment to which this subsection applies is obtained.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either—
(a) it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or
(b) it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.
(3) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (2) above whether a liability is or would be covered by the terms of a policy or security, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy or the operation of the security by reference to the holding by the driver of the vehicle of a licence authorising him to drive it shall be treated as of no effect.
(4) In subsection (2)(b) above “excluded liability” means a liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, or damage to the property of any person who, at the time of the use which gave rise to the liability, was allowing himself to be carried in or upon the vehicle and knew or had reason to believe that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken, not being a person who—
(a) did not know and had no reason to believe that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken until after the commencement of his journey, and
(b) could not reasonably have been expected to have alighted from the vehicle.
In this subsection the reference to a person being carried in or upon a vehicle includes a reference to a person entering or getting on to, or alighting from, the vehicle.
(5) Notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy or security, he must, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment—
(a) as regards liability in respect of death or bodily injury, any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum,
(b) as regards liability in respect of damage to property, any sum required to be paid under subsection (6) below, and
(c) any amount payable in respect of costs.
(6) This subsection requires—
(a) where the total of any amounts paid, payable or likely to be payable under the policy or security in respect of damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the accident in question does not exceed £250,000, the payment of any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum,
(b) where that total exceeds £250,000, the payment of either—
(i) such proportion of any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability as £250,000 bears to that total, together with the same proportion of any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum, or
(ii) the difference between the total of any amounts already paid under the policy or security in respect of such damage and £250,000, together with such proportion of any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability as the difference bears to that sum,
whichever is the less, unless not less than £250,000 has already been paid under the policy or security in respect of such damage (in which case nothing is payable).
(7) Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is insured by a policy or whose liability is covered by a security, he is entitled to recover from that person—
(a) that amount, in a case where he became liable to pay it by virtue only of subsection (3) above, or
(b) in a case where that amount exceeds the amount for which he would, apart from the provisions of this section, be liable under the policy or security in respect of that liability, the excess.
(8) Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is not insured by a policy or whose liability is not covered by a security, he is entitled to recover the amount from that person or from any person who—
(a) is insured by the policy, or whose liability is covered by the security, by the terms of which the liability would be covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and
(b) caused or permitted the use of the vehicle which gave rise to the liability.
(9) In this section—
(a) “insurer” includes a person giving a security,
(b) “material” means of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions, and
(c) “liability covered by the terms of the policy or security” means a liability which is covered by the policy or security or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel, or has avoided or cancelled, the policy or security.
(10) In the application of this section to Scotland, the words “by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments” in subsections (5) and (6) (in each place where they appear) shall be omitted.

[Dwight VanDriver]

So Observer, you are a Proprietor of a business.

Your Insurance stipulates Social, Domestic and Pleasure use only.

You jump in your car and drive off to meet (?)for the purposes of discussing a contract.

Thats OK then?

No.

Wood v General etc Assurance Company [1949] held not covered for business use.

Likewise Passmore v Vulcan etc Insurance Co [1935]. Here we have a Certificate limited to use in the assured business.
He and another member of the firm used the vehicle on their respective businesses. Held - no insurance.

I have prosecuted and obtained convictions in the past for No Insurance where young bucks on an open Insurance Cerificate have allowed their girl friend to drive who have never held a Licence.

As I understand S 151 and Section 152 RTA 1988 that you quote is in relation to judgements on liability under Civil Law and not connected to the criminal offence of using without Insurance. Stones Justices Manual (Criminal Law Bible) does not delve into those two sections. I wonder why?

I need more convincing that under that described by Safe speed Pizza man was lawful.

dvd

Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Monday 1st October 18:01

[Chrispy Porker]

AS I said before, it matters not whether he was insured or not.
As long as the officers belief that he was not insured was 'reasonable' the seizure of the vehicle was lawful.

AS far as I am concerned, if a driver is using a vehicle in circumstances that his policy specifically excludes, I would have reasonable grounds to believe he was not insured.