Could be quite a big issue.....
Discussion
Just read this,
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
Could this really be enforced in a court?
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
Could this really be enforced in a court?
From another forum this turned up http://www.whitedalton.co.uk/motorbike-blog/2013/1...
I have no idea how this would go myself but think Loon will have a better view on this than many
I have no idea how this would go myself but think Loon will have a better view on this than many
article said:
Because he chose to buy my motorcycle, I am, in the eyes of the law, giving him permission to ride the bike and I am in breach of my contract.
Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
Is the above true from a legal stand point?Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
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?
Of course if I crash then they will come after friend. But as long as I don't crash, everyone should be happy.
On mobile site so have to be brief. It's full of half truths.
If you leave your insurance running then there has always been a possibility of a claim if the new owner doesn't insure it themselves. There's nothing new in that and I've mentioned it several times when people let their insurance run just to get another years NCD.
As for your insurance then claiming their outlay back off you. There is not a cat in hell's chance of that happening either legally or morally.
The 3rd and 4th posts on here are ridiculously hysterical and you ought to be working for the Daily Mail.
If you leave your insurance running then there has always been a possibility of a claim if the new owner doesn't insure it themselves. There's nothing new in that and I've mentioned it several times when people let their insurance run just to get another years NCD.
As for your insurance then claiming their outlay back off you. There is not a cat in hell's chance of that happening either legally or morally.
The 3rd and 4th posts on here are ridiculously hysterical and you ought to be working for the Daily Mail.
LoonR1 said:
On mobile site so have to be brief. It's full of half truths.
If you leave your insurance running then there has always been a possibility of a claim if the new owner doesn't insure it themselves. There's nothing new in that and I've mentioned it several times when people let their insurance run just to get another years NCD.
As for your insurance then claiming their outlay back off you. There is not a cat in hell's chance of that happening either legally or morally.
The 3rd and 4th posts on here are ridiculously hysterical and you ought to be working for the Daily Mail.
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?If you leave your insurance running then there has always been a possibility of a claim if the new owner doesn't insure it themselves. There's nothing new in that and I've mentioned it several times when people let their insurance run just to get another years NCD.
As for your insurance then claiming their outlay back off you. There is not a cat in hell's chance of that happening either legally or morally.
The 3rd and 4th posts on here are ridiculously hysterical and you ought to be working for the Daily Mail.
LoonR1 said:
black-k1 said:
Andrew Dalton in the link above disagrees.
Good for him. However, last time I checked a solicitor doesn't tell me whether or not I can recover an outlay. Nice it of publicity for him though on a BS story. LoonR1 said:
As for your insurance then claiming their outlay back off you. There is not a cat in hell's chance of that happening either legally or morally.
Yes, what would a solicitor know about the law?As you said in your first post, the whole thing is full of half truths.
black-k1 said:
Yes, what would a solicitor know about the law?
As you said in your first post, the whole thing is full of half truths.
I don't know. Maybe he could explain how we would exercise rights that we appear not to have to recover. We recover on a subrogated basis, however you don't subrogate these rights to us. The only theoretical right to recover would be under breach of contract which would be nigh on impossible to enforce, given we would have paid out as Insurer rather than strictly following RTA / Article 69 obligations. As you said in your first post, the whole thing is full of half truths.
LoonR1 said:
black-k1 said:
Yes, what would a solicitor know about the law?
As you said in your first post, the whole thing is full of half truths.
I don't know. Maybe he could explain how we would exercise rights that we appear not to have to recover. We recover on a subrogated basis, however you don't subrogate these rights to us. The only theoretical right to recover would be under breach of contract which would be nigh on impossible to enforce, given we would have paid out as Insurer rather than strictly following RTA / Article 69 obligations. As you said in your first post, the whole thing is full of half truths.
Andrew Dalton said:
... They could feasibly bankrupt you but things would be a lot worse if you owned your own home because they can and do come after you if you have assets.
I think you should let him know that he's wrong and you're right. 
McClure said:
I would argue that the seller no longer has an insurable interest in the bike, and thus the policy is void as from the time of completion of the sale.
Not sure of the legal aspect but looking at it from the other side this should also apply to people who let their policy run for a few weeks after selling the bike to claim a full year NCD, no NCD from the completion of a sale. If you are deliberately in it to win it you must also accept the potential for a loss. McClure said:
I would argue that the seller no longer has an insurable interest in the bike, and thus the policy is void as from the time of completion of the sale.
I hope you don't work in insurance as Insurable Interest only needs to be proven at outset and is completely irrelevant at claim stage.black-k1 said:
I think you should let him know that he's wrong and you're right.
I have no need to at the moment. My guys often correct solicitors in court. You see when a case goes to court there is usually a solicitor on either side both saying they are right. Guess what? One of them is wrong We never chase for recovery of outlay, nor do I know of another insurer who does. The process to allow for it legally is ridiculously laborious, expensive and without merit. In 20 years we have never attempted recovery of a 3rd party payout.
Oh and just for clarity WD are a very small practice. I know you think in a nobody but they barely register on my radar.
LoonR1 said:
I hope you don't work in insurance as Insurable Interest only needs to be proven at outset and is completely irrelevant at claim stage.
I don't work in insurance, but thanks for the patronising comment anyway. I said that's what I would argue; it depends on the current view of the Courts. S1 Life Assurance Act renders any policy void made by any person having no interest; but the government is looking to reform this.
It also depends on when legal title to the bike passes - on sale, or when the DVLA register is updated; and if the former then whether the seller maintains an equitable interest as registered keeper until the DVLA register is updated.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff