Could be quite a big issue.....

[LoonR1]

Insurable Interest Act was "made" in 1774. Long before anybody could even conceive of a motor vehicle. It was designed to stop Fred insuring Pete, then Fred murders Pete and pockets the cash.

The concept has been varied many times since then and is effectively redundant for Motor insurance polices where you have lease, HP, PCP etc funding car purchases. It only applies at inception of a policy, not for the duration and would not provide a substantive defence to any subsequent claim.

Edit 1774. Too much Kronenberg since I last studied.

Edited by LoonR1 on Tuesday 2nd September 14:46

[Biker's Nemesis]

Loon may be slower than a second cum on a bike but he knows his insurance stuff

[LoonR1]

Biker's Nemesis said:

Loon may be slower than a second cum on a bike but he knows his insurance stuff

Welcome back old timer. How were the mice at Schipol?

[jasesapphy]

Biker's Nemesis said:

Loon may be slower than a second cum on a bike but he knows his insurance stuff

Savage BN

[DJP]

.blue said:

Is the above true from a legal stand point?

If so, it means that as long a friend gives me permission to drive his car/bike (which I am not insured on directly), I will still be covered by his insurance policy (albeit with friend's insurer chasing him for cost of claims) and so can't be done for driving uninsured?

.blue said:

Yes, intentionally blunt and unpadded. If the quoted statement is true, the following sentences follow logically even though on the surface the conclusion seems absurd. What have I missed?

I agree, these are logical consequences which, if true, would have far reaching ramifications.

Not least, it would appear to render the offence of “No Insurance” inoperable as long as someone, somewhere, had a policy out on the vehicle.

And, as just one example, where would that leave dealers? When I test drive a vehicle, I'm covered by their insurance.

So how long after purchase would they be deemed to still have an insurable interest?

Doesn't sound likely to me.

[LoonR1]

DJP said:

I agree, these are logical consequences which, if true, would have far reaching ramifications.

Not least, it would appear to render the offence of “No Insurance” inoperable as long as someone, somewhere, had a policy out on the vehicle.

And, as just one example, where would that leave dealers? When I test drive a vehicle, I'm covered by their insurance.

So how long after purchase would they be deemed to still have an insurable interest?

Doesn't sound likely to me.

Do you understand the difference between indemnity and insurance? Do you understand what the RTA requires of an insurer? Do you understand what Article 75 requires of an insurer? Do you understand where the MIB come I to play in insurance?

I'm guessing the answer is no to all of those based on your comments.

Also why this obsession with Insurable Interest, it's a complete red herring and of no relevance whatsoever.

[DJP]

LoonR1 said:

Do you understand the difference between indemnity and insurance? Do you understand what the RTA requires of an insurer? Do you understand what Article 75 requires of an insurer? Do you understand where the MIB come I to play in insurance?

I'm guessing the answer is no to all of those based on your comments.

Also why this obsession with Insurable Interest, it's a complete red herring and of no relevance whatsoever.

With the exception of the RTA bit, you're quite right. I don't know.

So educate me.

For your reference, I am police officer. I have no interest in insurance companies or their machinations per se but considerable interest in criminal law and, in this specific example, the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

The Road Traffic Act requires that there be in force: "...such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks...”

And therein lies the rub.

If the consequences of A's criminal acts can potentially be paid for by B's insurance (eg if the buyer of my old motorcycle crashes it and my insurers are held liable or otherwise decide to pay out) then that “...security in respect of third party risks” surely exists and A cannot therefore be guilty of “No Insurance”.

No?

And that's my point. (And, yes, I'm only interested in the criminal bit and I realise that your expertise is more in the area of civil law)

[LoonR1]

DJP said:

With the exception of the RTA bit, you're quite right. I don't know.

So educate me.

For your reference, I am police officer. I have no interest in insurance companies or their machinations per se but considerable interest in criminal law and, in this specific example, the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.

The Road Traffic Act requires that there be in force: "...such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks...”

And therein lies the rub.

If the consequences of A's criminal acts can potentially be paid for by B's insurance (eg if the buyer of my old motorcycle crashes it and my insurers are held liable or otherwise decide to pay out) then that “...security in respect of third party risks” surely exists and A cannot therefore be guilty of “No Insurance”.

No?

And that's my point. (And, yes, I'm only interested in the criminal bit and I realise that your expertise is more in the area of civil law)

I'm not going into the multiple legal rules and sub sections, it in simple terms it works like this.

A has not taken out a policy to cover him. B has a policy on the vehicle. B's insurer pays out when a crashes. This does NOT mean A is insured. It means that Insurer B will indemnify any innocent third party against any losses incurred by A. A remains uninsured. The cover is provided under RTA obligations.

If you take your thoughts to their logical conclusions then the fact that the MIB exists means nobody is ever uninsured.

[Biker's Nemesis]

LoonR1 said:

Welcome back old timer. How were the mice at Schipol?

Sorry Simon, I didn't see this reply. there were quite a few mice in the disabled waiting area, I did try to catch a few to help pass the time.

[LoonR1]

Biker's Nemesis said:

Sorry Simon, I didn't see this reply. there were quite a few mice in the disabled waiting area, I did try to catch a few to help pass the time.

I saw

[shielsy]

Lets assume that Mr Duffys insurance only covered himself as a rider, and he willingly let the Mr Bryson ride the bike before he bought it. Lets also assume that Mr Bryson was not covered under his own policy. If the police decided to pull Mr Bryson over at the roadside he would be charged with "driving/riding without insurance", fined and given an IN10 (6 points). Does this charge not clarify the state of insurance...? There is no insurance and surely (the late) Mr Bryson is accountable for any liabilities.

[LoonR1]

shielsy said:

Lets assume that Mr Duffys insurance only covered himself as a rider, and he willingly let the Mr Bryson ride the bike before he bought it. Lets also assume that Mr Bryson was not covered under his own policy. If the police decided to pull Mr Bryson over at the roadside he would be charged with "driving/riding without insurance", fined and given an IN10 (6 points). Does this charge not clarify the state of insurance...? There is no insurance and surely (the late) Mr Bryson is accountable for any liabilities.

No it doesn't. There are RTA obligations and Article 75 statuses to consider.

Here's a very good document posted by a knowledgeable poster in the SP&L thread around this

http://www.12kbw.co.uk/userfiles/Documents/Motor_i...

Once you understand that then feel free to comment.

[Splitpin2008]

So... what if my bike got stolen?
Does my insurance 'cover' the thief?

[LoonR1]

Splitpin2008 said:

So... what if my bike got stolen?
Does my insurance 'cover' the thief?

Given that's explicitly answered I the notes then it's a poor question

1. The thief is not covered for damage he does to you your bike or to himself.

2. The damage to your bike is covered by your policy

3. If he hits someone else then they are paid out via your insurance. This assumes he is apprehended and proven to be the thief.

3a although your insurance covers the TP this is only on an indemnity not insured basis and the thief remains uninsured

3b the insurer potentially retains the right to recover their outlay in full in full from the thief. In practice this is rarely going to happen for a variety of reasons, not least ability to pay.

4 if the thief is not apprehended then it reverts to MIB under the untraced Driver agreement.

[GTIR]

So if you go to cancel the insurance and there's a hefty fee to pay for the privilege so decide not to. Can oneself remind the insurer that they are liable for any claims and it'd be in their interest to cancel the policy anyway?

And besides why should it cost money to cancel a policy!

[LoonR1]

GTIR said:

So if you go to cancel the insurance and there's a hefty fee to pay for the privilege so decide not to. Can oneself remind the insurer that they are liable for any claims and it'd be in their interest to cancel the policy anyway?

And besides why should it cost money to cancel a policy!

Because it's an annual policy. Have you tried cancelling an annual policy part way through with any provider of any product? Try it with your mobile or Sky or Your utility providers at home.

It doesn't cost money btw, you just make up the difference to the point they agree to cancel. If you've paid in full for the year then you'll at worst have nothing to pay, most likely you'll get a refund of some description. If you pay monthly then you may well have a shortfall to make up

Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 3rd September 11:11

[GTIR]

I understand why but I have paid in full in May.

My policy was only £41!

[LoonR1]

GTIR said:

I understand why but I have paid in full in May.

My policy was only £41!

Then what's the issue? It cost you next to nothing to insure for the year. Even if you have to pay a small fee to cancel it's still cost you nothing.

[GTIR]

LoonR1 said:

GTIR said:

I understand why but I have paid in full in May.

My policy was only £41!

Then what's the issue? It cost you next to nothing to insure for the year. Even if you have to pay a small fee to cancel it's still cost you nothing.

It cost me next to nothig because the insurance company views me as very low risk but paying £36.11 to cancel an already paid £41 policy after four months?
If it was an admin fee then fair enough, but it isn't.

So I will have paid £86.11 for three months insurance on a policy that cost £41?
I understand they are in business but they will not be providing insurance for the rest of the policy.

Look, I know arguing with you about insurance is pointless as you are looking at it from an insurers point of view, which although I think sucks, I can see why.

However. Why would I bother cancelling as I will not be getting more insrance until June next year?

My question I asked erlier is what's the insurance compnies policy on this scenario, bearing in mind the original article and your points about them being liable and the chance of claiming the money from the "policy holder"?

[LoonR1]

This is where I'm confused. If the premium was £41 for the year then the only subsequent charge that can be applied is an admin fee. They can't charge more for the insurance element, if you're just cancelling.