Car seized, no insurance, but SDP certificate in force
Discussion
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]
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
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?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
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?
It really depends on what the Insurers have done / would have done.
The worse case is the the Insured misrepresented the risk, said they they were SD&P when in fact they knew full well they were a pizza delivery driver, then the insurer will be perfectly within their rights to avoid the policy.
That is, cancel the policy ab initio, it never existed. There is no SD&P, there is no contract. The fact that they then have a statutory duty under the RTA to pay TPPI and TPPD claims makes not a bit of difference. It is just a way of preventing too much reliance on the MIB uninsured drivers fund (there is a next level of this as well, Article 75, when they don't have a statutory duty).
If what happened was that the insured, at time of contract, wasn't a delivery driver but became one later, we then need to look at the contract and see what warrantys were broken if he didn't disclose. Moving from SD&P to Commercial Use cover is clearly material to the risk. Under these circumstances it is possible that the contract is still in place, in which case he still has cover, even though the insurer may well not pay their side of the claim. Duties of continuous disclosure are an often argued point and not black and white.
Yes, there are a whole lot of drivers out there with potential lack of cover. The classic is the "Commuting" cover which gets you too and from a permanant place of work. You then need to visit the Leeds office or whatever and bingo, you are into the next level of cover, that of multiple sites (often this is included in the standard, but not always, it often says stuff about meetings at other offices, to distinguish from being a salesman etc).
The worse case is the the Insured misrepresented the risk, said they they were SD&P when in fact they knew full well they were a pizza delivery driver, then the insurer will be perfectly within their rights to avoid the policy.
That is, cancel the policy ab initio, it never existed. There is no SD&P, there is no contract. The fact that they then have a statutory duty under the RTA to pay TPPI and TPPD claims makes not a bit of difference. It is just a way of preventing too much reliance on the MIB uninsured drivers fund (there is a next level of this as well, Article 75, when they don't have a statutory duty).
If what happened was that the insured, at time of contract, wasn't a delivery driver but became one later, we then need to look at the contract and see what warrantys were broken if he didn't disclose. Moving from SD&P to Commercial Use cover is clearly material to the risk. Under these circumstances it is possible that the contract is still in place, in which case he still has cover, even though the insurer may well not pay their side of the claim. Duties of continuous disclosure are an often argued point and not black and white.
Yes, there are a whole lot of drivers out there with potential lack of cover. The classic is the "Commuting" cover which gets you too and from a permanant place of work. You then need to visit the Leeds office or whatever and bingo, you are into the next level of cover, that of multiple sites (often this is included in the standard, but not always, it often says stuff about meetings at other offices, to distinguish from being a salesman etc).
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.
A Police Officer, who has clearly been round this particular loop, says confidently that the vehicle should NOT have been seized.
As to whether the car should have been seized, or the ins and outs of what the police do or don't do to pizza delivery people, ain't my speciality to be honest, so I will not comment (other than to say it seems a bit off to do someone on the basis of a hypothesis that they might be uninsured).
As to the insurance contract stuff, your police officer friend is wrong I am afraid. If someone has deliberately mispresented the risk, the contract can be void. They are uninsured. Yes, they "had" insurance at the time of the accident. Yes, the insurer may well pay out any third party injury or property damage claim under their statutory liabilty. Still doesn't mean they are insured third party.
Never trust anyone who gives you a black and white answer on matters of law. It simply isn't that simple. Note I did not make a judgement either way, I simply set out the parameters under which I could see (and have seen) it go one way or the other.
Tell the insurer a porkie pie about your job (or convictions or claims or anything else material) and expect to still be covered TP ? Not a chance. You might get away with it, but on balance you won't.
Getting your policy avoided by actions of the police who then use that to prosecute you for lack of insurance ? Interesting tactic. No idea, am not a copper !
Fight it ? Absolutely. Seems a bit off to me. Just fight on the right battlefield, not the wrong one.
As to the insurance contract stuff, your police officer friend is wrong I am afraid. If someone has deliberately mispresented the risk, the contract can be void. They are uninsured. Yes, they "had" insurance at the time of the accident. Yes, the insurer may well pay out any third party injury or property damage claim under their statutory liabilty. Still doesn't mean they are insured third party.
Never trust anyone who gives you a black and white answer on matters of law. It simply isn't that simple. Note I did not make a judgement either way, I simply set out the parameters under which I could see (and have seen) it go one way or the other.
Tell the insurer a porkie pie about your job (or convictions or claims or anything else material) and expect to still be covered TP ? Not a chance. You might get away with it, but on balance you won't.
Getting your policy avoided by actions of the police who then use that to prosecute you for lack of insurance ? Interesting tactic. No idea, am not a copper !
Fight it ? Absolutely. Seems a bit off to me. Just fight on the right battlefield, not the wrong one.
I'd say the police were wrong to sieze on this occasion. I can appreciate the use of siezure to prevent an uninsured driver continuing to offend, surely the correct course of action would be to inform him and charge him with any offence commited. Assuming he agrees to stop working immediately, he'd be covered to drive home.
Alternatly, could he not simply have the necessary cover in place over the phone in minutes, and therfore continue his evening, as no further offence would be being commited.
Obviously I don't know the regs to the letter, but this seems wrong, or at the very least unnecessary.
Alternatly, could he not simply have the necessary cover in place over the phone in minutes, and therfore continue his evening, as no further offence would be being commited.
Obviously I don't know the regs to the letter, but this seems wrong, or at the very least unnecessary.
safespeed said:
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?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
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.
I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.
I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.
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.
Noger said:
As to whether the car should have been seized, or the ins and outs of what the police do or don't do to pizza delivery people, ain't my speciality to be honest, so I will not comment (other than to say it seems a bit off to do someone on the basis of a hypothesis that they might be uninsured).
As to the insurance contract stuff, your police officer friend is wrong I am afraid. If someone has deliberately mispresented the risk, the contract can be void. They are uninsured. Yes, they "had" insurance at the time of the accident. Yes, the insurer may well pay out any third party injury or property damage claim under their statutory liabilty. Still doesn't mean they are insured third party.
Never trust anyone who gives you a black and white answer on matters of law. It simply isn't that simple. Note I did not make a judgement either way, I simply set out the parameters under which I could see (and have seen) it go one way or the other.
Tell the insurer a porkie pie about your job (or convictions or claims or anything else material) and expect to still be covered TP ? Not a chance. You might get away with it, but on balance you won't.
Getting your policy avoided by actions of the police who then use that to prosecute you for lack of insurance ? Interesting tactic. No idea, am not a copper !
Fight it ? Absolutely. Seems a bit off to me. Just fight on the right battlefield, not the wrong one.
With respect, I think this is black and white. The policy may be avoidable by the insurer but, until steps are taken to avoid it (when the insurer becomes aware of the misrepresentation) the contract remains in force and the vehicle is, as a matter of law, insured.As to the insurance contract stuff, your police officer friend is wrong I am afraid. If someone has deliberately mispresented the risk, the contract can be void. They are uninsured. Yes, they "had" insurance at the time of the accident. Yes, the insurer may well pay out any third party injury or property damage claim under their statutory liabilty. Still doesn't mean they are insured third party.
Never trust anyone who gives you a black and white answer on matters of law. It simply isn't that simple. Note I did not make a judgement either way, I simply set out the parameters under which I could see (and have seen) it go one way or the other.
Tell the insurer a porkie pie about your job (or convictions or claims or anything else material) and expect to still be covered TP ? Not a chance. You might get away with it, but on balance you won't.
Getting your policy avoided by actions of the police who then use that to prosecute you for lack of insurance ? Interesting tactic. No idea, am not a copper !
Fight it ? Absolutely. Seems a bit off to me. Just fight on the right battlefield, not the wrong one.
Any misrepresentation (wilful or innocent) that may have occurred is a matter between the insurer and the insured. There is no contractual nexus between the insured and the police and the police have no power or authority to second guess what the insurer may or may not do if a misrepresentation came to their notice.
Abuse of power - clear cut and incontestable.
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:03 am Post subject:
The policy may be avoidable by the insurer but, until steps are taken to avoid it (when the insurer becomes aware of the misrepresentation) the contract remains in force and the vehicle is, as a matter of law, insured.
Any misrepresentation (wilful or innocent) that may have occurred is a matter between the insurer and the insured. There is no contractual nexus between the insured and the police and the police have no power or authority to second guess what the insurer may or may not do if a misrepresentation came to their notice.
Abuse of power - clear cut and incontestable.
[edit]
In addition, I note from certificates of insurance issued by two separate insurers the statement:
insurance certificate said:
ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
Edited by Observer2 on Monday 1st October 08:22
Now where did I get Steve from Paul?
OK.
My Certificate of Insurance, like all others, has vitually standard clauses:
Limitations as to use:
Only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes EXCLUDING travelling to and from work.
The Policy DOES NOT COVER use for Hire and reward, racing, pacemaking, speed testing OR FOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS.
How you can say that the Pizza driver is covered under this I would disagree even though it may be argued that at end of delivery he returns to legality if at that time he is no longer under obligations to his employer.
So on production of a certificate as above then Plod is faced with a No Insurance offence and as a result the legal power to seize the vehicle.
Personally under the circs I would not have invoked the power, but there again sat here I have discretion and not harried on performance figures.
dvd
OK.
My Certificate of Insurance, like all others, has vitually standard clauses:
Limitations as to use:
Only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes EXCLUDING travelling to and from work.
The Policy DOES NOT COVER use for Hire and reward, racing, pacemaking, speed testing OR FOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS.
How you can say that the Pizza driver is covered under this I would disagree even though it may be argued that at end of delivery he returns to legality if at that time he is no longer under obligations to his employer.
So on production of a certificate as above then Plod is faced with a No Insurance offence and as a result the legal power to seize the vehicle.
Personally under the circs I would not have invoked the power, but there again sat here I have discretion and not harried on performance figures.
dvd
Hmmm, you say it is black and white and then go on to say "what the insurer may or may not do" which seems grey-ish 
But we are on the same lines I think. I was not making any judgement on the legality of the police seizing something that by their actions makes it uninsured. I said it did seem a bit off, but I don't know police law.
The grey bit is what the insurer would do, as you have pointed out. So the police are acting on a grey area.
"insurance certificate said:
ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
(the above language is a bit ambiguous but appears to confirm that insurers will accept a third party claim regardless of breach of use restrictons) "
All that means is that an insurer will not repudiate a third party claim. You can make a claim against pretty much any liability policy you like, effectively you ARE covered as third party. What the insurer has to do is prove they are not liable. That has nothing to do with cover or not !
But we are on the same lines I think. I was not making any judgement on the legality of the police seizing something that by their actions makes it uninsured. I said it did seem a bit off, but I don't know police law.
The grey bit is what the insurer would do, as you have pointed out. So the police are acting on a grey area.
"insurance certificate said:
ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
(the above language is a bit ambiguous but appears to confirm that insurers will accept a third party claim regardless of breach of use restrictons) "
All that means is that an insurer will not repudiate a third party claim. You can make a claim against pretty much any liability policy you like, effectively you ARE covered as third party. What the insurer has to do is prove they are not liable. That has nothing to do with cover or not !
Edited by Noger on Monday 1st October 08:28
PetrolTed said:
Can't see why so much effort is being expended on behalf of this person. He wasn't insured. He deserves all he gets, particularly if he's working in the car on a regular basis.
No, he was insured at the time, as we were discussing above. I am intrigued at the possibility that the police can effectively force an insurer to void a policy (by giving information that would mean misrepresentation) and then use that to prosecute on the basis the the contract is now void. It is so Minority Report !
Just wonder if this is a one off, someone overstepping the mark. Or is this a trend.
Our corporate policy covers business use of PRIVATE vehicles being used on the company's business (e.g. travelling from home to other than one's usual site, travelling between sites, carriage of goods, etc.). Perhaps the pizza shop provided similar cover for its delivery employees ... I wonder whether the police attempted to find out? - Streaky
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.
I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.
Where the hell do you get that from?I suspect that the vehicle shouldn't have been seized, but I have little sympathy for the driver involved.
The driver in question had bought and paid for his insurance; there is utterly no question about him trying to abuse anything.
If he had a part time job delivering food his insurance may very well have covered him to do so: we are not talking about heavy or hazardous goods here.
The last four claims that I helped to process involved the claims assessors attempting to pull out every trick in the book to avoid paying the claims.
They are frequently the ones "abusing" the system, not the driver.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Now where did I get Steve from Paul?
OK.
My Certificate of Insurance, like all others, has vitually standard clauses:
Limitations as to use:
Only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes EXCLUDING travelling to and from work.
The Policy DOES NOT COVER use for Hire and reward, racing, pacemaking, speed testing OR FOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS.
How you can say that the Pizza driver is covered under this I would disagree even though it may be argued that at end of delivery he returns to legality if at that time he is no longer under obligations to his employer.
So on production of a certificate as above then Plod is faced with a No Insurance offence and as a result the legal power to seize the vehicle.
Personally under the circs I would not have invoked the power, but there again sat here I have discretion and not harried on performance figures.
dvd
DVD,OK.
My Certificate of Insurance, like all others, has vitually standard clauses:
Limitations as to use:
Only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes EXCLUDING travelling to and from work.
The Policy DOES NOT COVER use for Hire and reward, racing, pacemaking, speed testing OR FOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS.
How you can say that the Pizza driver is covered under this I would disagree even though it may be argued that at end of delivery he returns to legality if at that time he is no longer under obligations to his employer.
So on production of a certificate as above then Plod is faced with a No Insurance offence and as a result the legal power to seize the vehicle.
Personally under the circs I would not have invoked the power, but there again sat here I have discretion and not harried on performance figures.
dvd
[impatient]I've explained that. [/impatient]
The police cannot, by any stretch of interpretation of law, be deemed to have the power to usurp the insurer's discretion to avoid a policy on grounds of misrepresentation. Until the insurer has taken such steps, it remains in force, notwithstanding any misrepresentation.
Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences said:
[22nd edition, paragraph 10.52]
A policy obtained by a false and material representation remains valid so far as the criminal liability under s.143 (RTA 1988) is concerned, unless the insurers have taken steps to avoid it; it makes no difference whether it is void or voidable
It is clear from the above that there is no breach of s.143 even if the policy is void (cf voidable). In this case, we don't know what the extent of the misrepresentation was; there is clearly a difference between a fraudulent misrepresentation made at the time a policy was taken out or renewed and a breach of a continuing representation that a vehicle will only be used for SDP purposes. I'd suspect the insurance contract is no more than voidable if the latter. Possibly, as there has been no claim, insurers would actually give the insured the opportunity to pay increased premium for business cover (backdated if applicable) and not seek to avoid the contract at all.A policy obtained by a false and material representation remains valid so far as the criminal liability under s.143 (RTA 1988) is concerned, unless the insurers have taken steps to avoid it; it makes no difference whether it is void or voidable
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff