3rd party insurance void?
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-1171729...
I thought, well read on the internet which is the same thing, that no matter what porkys the proposer told the insurance company couldn't get out of paying for 3rd party damages? Has the internet lied to me?
I thought, well read on the internet which is the same thing, that no matter what porkys the proposer told the insurance company couldn't get out of paying for 3rd party damages? Has the internet lied to me?
Diamond (an Admiral brand) will have brought this case, as there are two clear breaches of Utmost Good Faith, firstly it's 99.99% a fronting case, where "mummy" insures her son's chavved up car to save him some money. Secondly non-declaration of the modifications would void the 1st party element, but not mormally the third party.
However, this is quite a major ruling as it goes against the RTA obligations, where the insurer would have to pay and then have the right of recovery from Chav Boy.
If this ruling stands, then it's good news for those of us who are honest in terms of premiums, less so if we are hit by a fronted / non-declared modification vehicle. It's really bad news for the fraudsters though, although I doubt they'll care.
personally, I say good one Diamond
However, this is quite a major ruling as it goes against the RTA obligations, where the insurer would have to pay and then have the right of recovery from Chav Boy.
If this ruling stands, then it's good news for those of us who are honest in terms of premiums, less so if we are hit by a fronted / non-declared modification vehicle. It's really bad news for the fraudsters though, although I doubt they'll care.
personally, I say good one Diamond
TheEnd said:
fronting bint 2...
Is it possible that third party inescapable liability lies with the policyholder only, and not additional drivers?
Nope, all policies provide the same cover for all named drivrs on a TP basis. Own damage details may vary eg higher excesses for younger drivers, but TP cover and RTA rules (used to be) are absolute.Is it possible that third party inescapable liability lies with the policyholder only, and not additional drivers?
more info on the crash in question.
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/2272212.death_cras...
he wasn't racing, but happened to undertake his mate pretty fast.
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/2272212.death_cras...
he wasn't racing, but happened to undertake his mate pretty fast.
BBC said:
David Bissmire, 20, of Lewisham, admitted causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced in 2008.
The High Court heard car owner Anne Bissmire had not informed the insurer of its "myriad modifications".
Mr Bissmere, who was sentenced to four years in a young offenders institution, was a teenager when he crashed the car in London Road.
The High Court heard car owner Anne Bissmire had not informed the insurer of its "myriad modifications".
Mr Bissmere, who was sentenced to four years in a young offenders institution, was a teenager when he crashed the car in London Road.
BBC said:
The ruling means that substantial damages claims now likely to be made by Mr Morris's family and others injured in the accident can only be taken up with the Motor Insurers Bureau, the industry body that compensates victims of uninsured drivers.
Erm - why only the MIB ? The driver and the person who lied on the insurance proposal are still available to be pursued.The MIB pay, and then sue.
But normally the insurer (even if they are entitled to avoid) would do this instead of the MIB.
What the BBC are saying, it seems, is that the insurer are able to avoid the contract on the basis of non-disclosure and use this to avoid paying under the RTA ? Which I don't believe is the case, is it ?
But normally the insurer (even if they are entitled to avoid) would do this instead of the MIB.
What the BBC are saying, it seems, is that the insurer are able to avoid the contract on the basis of non-disclosure and use this to avoid paying under the RTA ? Which I don't believe is the case, is it ?
Doesn't help any of us 
Do we really want more uninsured cars on the roads?
Did the modifications contribute to the accident?
Insurers must know that when a young lad (or ladette) is added to a policy that he's going to drive it - it's a risk.
At what stage did the phrase 'fronting' appear and it became a reason for withdrawing cover?
Do we really want more uninsured cars on the roads?
Did the modifications contribute to the accident?
Insurers must know that when a young lad (or ladette) is added to a policy that he's going to drive it - it's a risk.
At what stage did the phrase 'fronting' appear and it became a reason for withdrawing cover?
saaby93 said:
Doesn't help any of us
Do we really want more uninsured cars on the roads?
Did the modifications contribute to the accident?
Insurers must know that when a young lad (or ladette) is added to a policy that he's going to drive it - it's a risk.
At what stage did the phrase 'fronting' appear and it became a reason for withdrawing cover?
Alot of fronted policies are taken out online and the PH and drivers tend to avoid contacting the insurer by phone, so it can take awhile for these things to be picked up.Do we really want more uninsured cars on the roads?
Did the modifications contribute to the accident?
Insurers must know that when a young lad (or ladette) is added to a policy that he's going to drive it - it's a risk.
At what stage did the phrase 'fronting' appear and it became a reason for withdrawing cover?
In the article it does say that "when asked the question about Mods" this obviously shows that they did call to accept over the phone but not all policies with young drivers are fronted perhaps he was on a Provisional at the time, but there is no doubt if the Mum had said yes to Mods the person on the phone would have immediately ask questions regarding fronting.
The problem is if the PH is adament that they are the main user and the young driver isn't we have to take that on utmost good faith the policy will be loaded to put them off but if they want to take the policy out knowing full well we won't payout if it is fronted thats up to them.
The only problem i see if the 3rd party not getting paid but as i said I'm sure they will and the article may be incorrect.
If we're reading this correctly then this is extremely bad news.
What I'm seeing is the ability for an insurer to get out of it's 3rd party requirements if the policy could be deemed illegal - for say fronting or undeclared mods etc.
Potentially the Motor Insurance Bureau will now how to stump up all the money and that means one thing - increased premiums to cover this.
Insurance companies should never be able to wriggle out of their 3rd party requirments - but this story more or less says they have.
Worrying.
What I'm seeing is the ability for an insurer to get out of it's 3rd party requirements if the policy could be deemed illegal - for say fronting or undeclared mods etc.
Potentially the Motor Insurance Bureau will now how to stump up all the money and that means one thing - increased premiums to cover this.
Insurance companies should never be able to wriggle out of their 3rd party requirments - but this story more or less says they have.
Worrying.
This is obviously going to be a large (well into six figures) case, hence the venue.
I'm not convinced that this is about anything other than the insurer's right of recovery against their insured, as there is no quote from an Admiral spokesperson that they are palming this off on the MIB. There is also no indication that the MIB was represented on this one, or provided a quote, which is another indication that Admiral was looking to disapply the RTA. Instead I think that the MIB point was added by the journalist and not actually based on any ruling of the Court (I certainly hope so).
I disagree with R1 Loon's point that it's good news for people who declare their circumstances hoenstly. As the MIB is funded by insurers, if it were the case that this would fall under the uninsured drivers' agreement, it's unlikely to lead to any overall reduction in premiums as the MIB would have to administer the claim once the insurer has actually gone through the process of investigating and avoiding it. As such, the cost would be higher overall (albeit possibly not from Admiral's perspective as they are probably more exposed to this risk than average).
As such, insurers with a high exposure to fronting could write lower premiums, knowing that the claim would be passed to the MIB, thus increasing the overall burden to honest drivers.
I'm not convinced that this is about anything other than the insurer's right of recovery against their insured, as there is no quote from an Admiral spokesperson that they are palming this off on the MIB. There is also no indication that the MIB was represented on this one, or provided a quote, which is another indication that Admiral was looking to disapply the RTA. Instead I think that the MIB point was added by the journalist and not actually based on any ruling of the Court (I certainly hope so).
I disagree with R1 Loon's point that it's good news for people who declare their circumstances hoenstly. As the MIB is funded by insurers, if it were the case that this would fall under the uninsured drivers' agreement, it's unlikely to lead to any overall reduction in premiums as the MIB would have to administer the claim once the insurer has actually gone through the process of investigating and avoiding it. As such, the cost would be higher overall (albeit possibly not from Admiral's perspective as they are probably more exposed to this risk than average).
As such, insurers with a high exposure to fronting could write lower premiums, knowing that the claim would be passed to the MIB, thus increasing the overall burden to honest drivers.
Edited by DavidHM on Wednesday 10th November 11:45
I think it depends. It certainly could bring premiums down if the people who currently front are less inclined to do so as a result of this and similar claims, but it might also be that those who are merely naive will be better informed and the complete twunts will carry on as before.
ZOLLAR said:
In the article it does say that "when asked the question about Mods" this obviously shows that they did call to accept over the phone but not all policies with young drivers are fronted perhaps he was on a Provisional at the time, but there is no doubt if the Mum had said yes to Mods the person on the phone would have immediately ask questions regarding fronting.
That mods question is a very difficult question for most people - rather than having an argument about what is or isnt a mod dont they just say no?You go down the pub and tell your mates youve declared a wheels mod and they look at you crazy - how would the insurers know? Besides it needs wheels - arent wheels covered?
If this is going to increase the number of uninsured drivers by 10-20% is it really a good idea?
saaby93 said:
ZOLLAR said:
In the article it does say that "when asked the question about Mods" this obviously shows that they did call to accept over the phone but not all policies with young drivers are fronted perhaps he was on a Provisional at the time, but there is no doubt if the Mum had said yes to Mods the person on the phone would have immediately ask questions regarding fronting.
That mods question is a very difficult question for most people - rather than having an argument about what is or isnt a mod dont they just say no?You go down the pub and tell your mates youve declared a wheels mod and they look at you crazy - how would the insurers know? Besides it needs wheels - arent wheels covered?
If this is going to increase the number of uninsured drivers by 10-20% is it really a good idea?
Basically if its not the same from when it was built by manufacturer its had a Mod or an optional extra.
I think the Article is singling out on the alloys, the alloys themselves would be nowhere near enough to void the policy its seems there were some other significant changes, possibly Mods that the insurer dosn't cover in the 1st place combine that with fronting and the insurer has voided the contract from inception meaning they were effectively uninsured for the time they were with diamond
Edit
To answer your question too, yes the mods question is a difficult for some people but the changes to the car clearly stood out so she knowingly lied when asked the question.
Edited by ZOLLAR on Wednesday 10th November 14:29
ZOLLAR said:
The question the person on the Phone would have asked the Policyholder is "Are there any non-standard modifications or optional extras fitted to the vehicle".
Thats what I'm sayingWho knows if their second hand car has had any modat all ? Chances are that it has but the easiest thing is to say no.
Agreed that there was a catalogue in this case, but voiding the policy doesnt help any of us.
Since the premium has been accepted wouldnt reducing cover to 'TP only' mean at least they were covered when they hit one of us?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff