Car seized, no insurance, but SDP certificate in force
Discussion
To sum up then...
safespeed said
A chap's car was seized for no insurance after he had been seen delivering pizza and it was determined at the roadside that he didn't have business cover although he provided evidence of SDP insurance cover.
I suspect that under such circumstances the insurance company are obliged to continue to provide 'road traffic act' cover, and the seizure was wrong in law. I suspect that this is one of the points where civil obligations and legal obligations carried by the insurance company diverge.
Can anyone clarify? Are my suspicions correct, or were the Police correct?
Chrispy Porker said:
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.
safespeed said
I think that's true and accurate.
COMMENT after a (up to now) factual exchange...then strays off into the world of what he deems moral...continuing with..
But hold on one cotton picking second. It's immoral and it's abhorrent. And especially so when Police Officers get it wrong.
You should NEVER be asked to make such a judgement. Such decisions are properly made by courts, and by NO ONE ELSE.
COMMENT....More testosterone spraying followed...until
crispy porker said..
To seize the vehicle you do not have to prove the vehicle was uninsured. You have to have an officer with a 'reasonable belief' that that is so.
To prove 'No insurance' in court you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
One is a power to seize, one is a conviction.
They are 2 separate concepts.
I do not need to prove anything to arrest a thief, I need a 'reasonable suspicion'
To prove he is a thief in court needs evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
COMMENT Most of everything else written is (to my eyes) posturing and testosterone spraying of the highest order...'I can Pee further than you'...'Oh no you can't'...type exchanges which have little bearing on the OP's original query/invitation to the troll fest.
CONCLUSION... the Police were indeed right to seize the vehicle notwithstanding the actual status of the insurance or the morals of seizure.
Edit for punctuation.
safespeed said
A chap's car was seized for no insurance after he had been seen delivering pizza and it was determined at the roadside that he didn't have business cover although he provided evidence of SDP insurance cover.
I suspect that under such circumstances the insurance company are obliged to continue to provide 'road traffic act' cover, and the seizure was wrong in law. I suspect that this is one of the points where civil obligations and legal obligations carried by the insurance company diverge.
Can anyone clarify? Are my suspicions correct, or were the Police correct?
Chrispy Porker said:
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.
safespeed said
I think that's true and accurate.
COMMENT after a (up to now) factual exchange...then strays off into the world of what he deems moral...continuing with..
But hold on one cotton picking second. It's immoral and it's abhorrent. And especially so when Police Officers get it wrong.
You should NEVER be asked to make such a judgement. Such decisions are properly made by courts, and by NO ONE ELSE.
COMMENT....More testosterone spraying followed...until
crispy porker said..
To seize the vehicle you do not have to prove the vehicle was uninsured. You have to have an officer with a 'reasonable belief' that that is so.
To prove 'No insurance' in court you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
One is a power to seize, one is a conviction.
They are 2 separate concepts.
I do not need to prove anything to arrest a thief, I need a 'reasonable suspicion'
To prove he is a thief in court needs evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
COMMENT Most of everything else written is (to my eyes) posturing and testosterone spraying of the highest order...'I can Pee further than you'...'Oh no you can't'...type exchanges which have little bearing on the OP's original query/invitation to the troll fest.
CONCLUSION... the Police were indeed right to seize the vehicle notwithstanding the actual status of the insurance or the morals of seizure.
Edit for punctuation.
Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 4th October 10:44
Observer2 said:
Noger said:
You can't just look at 148 in isolation. As above, "use" is not unavoidable under 148.
151 is what matters to us as insurers.
"(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."
So we are are quite able to avoid the policy, or decline indemnity. The RTA forces us to PAY the TP not to change the contractual relationship.
And this is how it works in practice too. It gets tricky as we have a claim on a cancelled policy. The IT guys get quite upset !
I thought we were saying the same thing, but let me try to put it more succinctly.151 is what matters to us as insurers.
"(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."
So we are are quite able to avoid the policy, or decline indemnity. The RTA forces us to PAY the TP not to change the contractual relationship.
And this is how it works in practice too. It gets tricky as we have a claim on a cancelled policy. The IT guys get quite upset !
1. A driver will be "insured" for RTA purposes, notwithstanding that he may be in breach of policy terms/warranties on account of (for example) use for business purposes when his policy is restricted to SDP, because the insurer is obliged to satisfy a judgement obtained against the driver by a TP notwithstanding the breach.
2. At the same time, the driver may be "uninsured" in the sense that he has lost his right to be indemnified under the contract of insurance because of his breach, so the insurer would be entitled to recover from the driver the amount paid in settlement of the TP's claim.
3. But, section 152 RTA allows the insurer to avoid liability to the TP if the policy:
(i) was cancelled (unilaterally or by mutual agreement) before the 'claim event' occurred (plus some other administrative requirements); or
(ii) there was a material non-disclosure or misrepresentation at the time policy was taken out (or renewed).
Is the above agreed?
The MIB have to pay 3rd parties in respect of collisions with uninsured drivers. If it's a simple matter of someone picking up the bill, none of us need pay for it, because the MIB will.
Observer2 said:
3. But, section 152 RTA allows the insurer to avoid liability to the TP if the policy:
(i) was cancelled (unilaterally or by mutual agreement) before the 'claim event' occurred (plus some other administrative requirements); or
(ii) there was a material non-disclosure or misrepresentation at the time policy was taken out (or renewed).
Is the above agreed?
But then Article 75 of the MIB agreement steps in. So even under ii) above, they are still liable to pay the TP.(i) was cancelled (unilaterally or by mutual agreement) before the 'claim event' occurred (plus some other administrative requirements); or
(ii) there was a material non-disclosure or misrepresentation at the time policy was taken out (or renewed).
Is the above agreed?
I think it is only semantics, but if an insurer is not contractually liable to pay, then the insured is not insured or even "insured".
It really is quite simple.
The driver had entered intoi a contract with a motor insurer. In return for his payment of the premium the insurer agreed to cover (indemnify) him for certain eventualities, but set out some limitations as to the application of the indemnities. One such limitation was that the insured asset would not be used for business purposes. In fact it probably listed the actual allowable uses and any use outside that would not fall inside the cover provided by the contract.
Thus if the vehicle was being used as a delivery van, there was no insurance cover in place, the vehicle was uninsured and the police had the power to seize it.
As a rally competitor, my policy specifically excludes rallying, so I have to take out aditional cover for each event I enter to cover the parts of the event which traverse public roads. It's not cheap, but I don't ignore that and don't rely on the MIB to cover me. To do so would mean I would be uninsured and liable for the penalties under the law.
Of course there are grey areas and a friend, who is in the motor sport preparation business has asked me to collect some parts for him from a company near to me. I'm not covered for use in connection with the motor trade, but as I'm not receiving any payment for this favour, I consider it to be a social, domestic and pleasure use. If he were to pay me for doing this I would not be covered.
In the case in this thread, the guy was not covered. He was uninsured. It's as simple as that.
The driver had entered intoi a contract with a motor insurer. In return for his payment of the premium the insurer agreed to cover (indemnify) him for certain eventualities, but set out some limitations as to the application of the indemnities. One such limitation was that the insured asset would not be used for business purposes. In fact it probably listed the actual allowable uses and any use outside that would not fall inside the cover provided by the contract.
Thus if the vehicle was being used as a delivery van, there was no insurance cover in place, the vehicle was uninsured and the police had the power to seize it.
As a rally competitor, my policy specifically excludes rallying, so I have to take out aditional cover for each event I enter to cover the parts of the event which traverse public roads. It's not cheap, but I don't ignore that and don't rely on the MIB to cover me. To do so would mean I would be uninsured and liable for the penalties under the law.
Of course there are grey areas and a friend, who is in the motor sport preparation business has asked me to collect some parts for him from a company near to me. I'm not covered for use in connection with the motor trade, but as I'm not receiving any payment for this favour, I consider it to be a social, domestic and pleasure use. If he were to pay me for doing this I would not be covered.
In the case in this thread, the guy was not covered. He was uninsured. It's as simple as that.
Edited by Cooperman on Thursday 4th October 11:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff