Car seized, no insurance, but SDP certificate in force

[safespeed]

Hi folks,

See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...

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?

[Edited for clarity after a misunderstanding]

Edited by safespeed on Sunday 30th September 16:53

[safespeed]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Steve

Read Section 148 Road Traffic Act 1988 in particular Sub Sec 1 and 2.

Use for business purposes is not one that Insurance Company are obliged to pay out for if not in force whereas No MOT they have to.

dvd

Steve? Who he?

Many thanks for the pointer. The law is here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_1988005...

I must say that I haven't managed to fully unravel the meaning of the provisions. It looks to me as if S150 may apply. Can anyone provide full clarification?

[safespeed]

An interesting development on the Safe Speed forums thread at: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=...

A Police Officer, who has clearly been round this particular loop, says confidently that the vehicle should NOT have been seized.

[safespeed]

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.

Eh?

I don't 'bill myself as the drivers' champion'.

Is 'blatant abuse of insurance' an offence?

Was this chap, in fact, legally insured? That's what I want to know.

[safespeed]

PetrolTed said:

Observer2 said:

PetrolTed said:

So if I drive my car on track despite my insurance stating that I'm not covered, then I'm still insured? Seems like a fair analogy.

I don't follow the logic here. He was using the car in a manner that his insurance didn't cover. If he injured someone whilst delivering then I only hope that his employer's insurance did cover him.

Obviously not covered for damage to own car. Not sure about the third party liability. Do track day organisers require sight of valid insurance including track day cover?

3rd Party Liability doesn't apply on track. If someone crashes into you then it's tough (I believe there was a case recently reaffirming this).

Third party motor insurance is defined by the road traffic act. The road traffic act doesn't apply to privately owned land to which the public don't have access.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[safespeed]

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.

I think that's true and accurate.

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.