Speeding and Insurance : quick question...
Discussion
The Dude said:
If you crash whilst breaking the posted speed limit, can your insurance company void any subsequent claim related to the incident?
They can't evade third party liability, they may try if it's extortionate to make an adjustment when it comes to paying out for their insureds costs.
7db said:
This may vary policy to policy, although as VH indicates, the 3rd party liability is prescribed in law. Check your policy for exclusions.
Have to admit to not checking my policy.
Just wondering in general what insurers attitudes to speeding were. We've seen them relax their attitude over one (or more?) SP30 endorsements recently - in terms of not increasing premiums for people who have them.
Oh, and no, I'm not asking because it's happened to me or "a friend". I avoided saying that initally as it's normally the first line of any legal question on here.
The Dude said:
Thanks VH.
How does this differ to, say, testing over the limit for alcohol in the same situation? Same treatment or more severe?
I did hear that if you are driving a company car whilst over the limit there is no insurance. This is because you need consent to drive the car, and of course the company would not give consent as you are drunk. Therefore no insurance. Don;t know how true this is or whether the police or insurance co would chase it.
chrisgr31,
Technically you are right, as a company wouldn't give their permission to drive a works car if you did so whilst over the limit.
The question would be put to the company nominated 'loser' usually the Manager or Company Secretary (not the typist type of secretary) who would normally say you didn't have their permission to drive the car under those circumstances and you could then be done for Taking Without The Owners Consent and No Insurance (no insurance company will insure an unauthorised driver).
Technically you are right, as a company wouldn't give their permission to drive a works car if you did so whilst over the limit.
The question would be put to the company nominated 'loser' usually the Manager or Company Secretary (not the typist type of secretary) who would normally say you didn't have their permission to drive the car under those circumstances and you could then be done for Taking Without The Owners Consent and No Insurance (no insurance company will insure an unauthorised driver).
Slightly irrelevant to the original question; but I understand that in Germany on unrestricted Autobahns that if one has an accident above the normal (and advisory) limit of 130kmh then the insurance implications are different than if they are under 130kmh but I'm not sure of the details.
XMG5 said:
chrisgr31,
Technically you are right, as a company wouldn't give their permission to drive a works car if you did so whilst over the limit.
The question would be put to the company nominated 'loser' usually the Manager or Company Secretary (not the typist type of secretary) who would normally say you didn't have their permission to drive the car under those circumstances and you could then be done for Taking Without The Owners Consent and No Insurance (no insurance company will insure an unauthorised driver).
What about your own private car though?
XMG5 said:
I believe, as posted elsewhere, the Third Party minimum required in law would remain (in place of your Fully Comp) in the event you had an accident whilst over the legal limit. Any Insurance peeps out there to confirm??
If you are in possession of a valid Certificate of Motor Insurance which covers you to drive the vehicle then 3rd party liability is assured in law - it matters not whether you are drunk, high on crystal meth, have permission from the fleet manager/company secretary/your mum or anyone else. The insurance company MUST cover you for third party risks and as this is the minimum required by law you *cannot* be prosecuted for driving with no insurance. Permission cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.
However - every policy I've ever dealt with has had a clause in it which says something along the lines of "if we [the insurer] are required by law to pay a claim which we would otherwise not pay, we reserve the right to recover the amount of the claim plus reasonable costs from the policyholder".
In plain English, if you cause a pile-up while stinking drunk (and therefore in breach of the conditions of your policy) the insurer will pay the claims of the people you shunt, but then will issue proceedings against you to recover their outlay.
loaf said:
I believe, as posted elsewhere, the Third Party minimum required in law would remain (in place of your Fully Comp) in the event you had an accident whilst over the legal limit. Any Insurance peeps out there to confirm??
If you are in possession of a valid Certificate of Motor Insurance which covers you to drive the vehicle then 3rd party liability is assured in law - it matters not whether you are drunk, high on crystal meth, have permission from the fleet manager/company secretary/your mum or anyone else. The insurance company MUST cover you for third party risks and as this is the minimum required by law you *cannot* be prosecuted for driving with no insurance. Permission cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.
However - every policy I've ever dealt with has had a clause in it which says something along the lines of "if we [the insurer] are required by law to pay a claim which we would otherwise not pay, we reserve the right to recover the amount of the claim plus reasonable costs from the policyholder".
In plain English, if you cause a pile-up while stinking drunk (and therefore in breach of the conditions of your policy) the insurer will pay the claims of the people you shunt, but then will issue proceedings against you to recover their outlay.
Perfect answer loaf, thank you.
loaf said:
I believe, as posted elsewhere, the Third Party minimum required in law would remain (in place of your Fully Comp) in the event you had an accident whilst over the legal limit. Any Insurance peeps out there to confirm??
If you are in possession of a valid Certificate of Motor Insurance which covers you to drive the vehicle then 3rd party liability is assured in law - it matters not whether you are drunk, high on crystal meth, have permission from the fleet manager/company secretary/your mum or anyone else. The insurance company MUST cover you for third party risks and as this is the minimum required by law you *cannot* be prosecuted for driving with no insurance. Permission cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.
However - every policy I've ever dealt with has had a clause in it which says something along the lines of "if we [the insurer] are required by law to pay a claim which we would otherwise not pay, we reserve the right to recover the amount of the claim plus reasonable costs from the policyholder".
In plain English, if you cause a pile-up while stinking drunk (and therefore in breach of the conditions of your policy) the insurer will pay the claims of the people you shunt, but then will issue proceedings against you to recover their outlay.
Is that totally correct though ?
I don't think so.
It is my understanding that insurers can revoke the insurance retrospectively in cases where it comes to light that they would & could never have issued insurance in the first place. Such as where the driver was working as a mini cab & his insurance company do not provide cover to anyone for that purpose. In such cases the insurance would be null & void and the driver uninsured commiting the offence. Any claim against that driver for compensation would have to be done through the MIB against criteria for claims against drivers untraced or uninsured.
Where they have issued insurance, but the actions of their legally insured policyholder are criminal, they would still have to pay third party costs.
vonhosen said:
I believe, as posted elsewhere, the Third Party minimum required in law would remain (in place of your Fully Comp) in the event you had an accident whilst over the legal limit. Any Insurance peeps out there to confirm??
If you are in possession of a valid Certificate of Motor Insurance which covers you to drive the vehicle then 3rd party liability is assured in law - it matters not whether you are drunk, high on crystal meth, have permission from the fleet manager/company secretary/your mum or anyone else. The insurance company MUST cover you for third party risks and as this is the minimum required by law you *cannot* be prosecuted for driving with no insurance. Permission cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.
However - every policy I've ever dealt with has had a clause in it which says something along the lines of "if we [the insurer] are required by law to pay a claim which we would otherwise not pay, we reserve the right to recover the amount of the claim plus reasonable costs from the policyholder".
In plain English, if you cause a pile-up while stinking drunk (and therefore in breach of the conditions of your policy) the insurer will pay the claims of the people you shunt, but then will issue proceedings against you to recover their outlay.
Is that totally correct though ?
I don't think so.
It is my understanding that insurers can revoke the insurance retrospectively in cases where it comes to light that they would & could never have issued insurance in the first place. Such as where the driver was working as a mini cab & his insurance company do not provide cover to anyone for that purpose. In such cases the insurance would be null & void and the driver uninsured commiting the offence. Any claim against that driver for compensation would have to be done through the MIB against criteria for claims against drivers untraced or uninsured.
Where they have issued insurance, but the actions of their legally insured policyholder are criminal, they would still have to pay third party costs.
What about this scenario.
You're driving along at 80mph on a dual carriageway. A largeish (wild) animal runs across your path. You hit it and crash the car (or swerve and crash I suppose). Subsequent police investigation determines that you were breaking the speed limit immediately prior to the accident.
What's the insurers position? Sympathetic or middle finger?
The Dude said:
What about this scenario.
You're driving along at 80mph on a dual carriageway. A largeish (wild) animal runs across your path. You hit it and crash the car (or swerve and crash I suppose). Subsequent police investigation determines that you were breaking the speed limit immediately prior to the accident.
What's the insurers position? Sympathetic or middle finger?
It's going to very much depend on your insurer & their attitude I'd imagine. No doubt if they are looking to avoid some liability they degree to which they do that would be proportional to your transgression, but it doesn't follow that because you are speeding that they will definitely try & avoid paying out.
vonhosen said:
What about this scenario.
You're driving along at 80mph on a dual carriageway. A largeish (wild) animal runs across your path. You hit it and crash the car (or swerve and crash I suppose). Subsequent police investigation determines that you were breaking the speed limit immediately prior to the accident.
What's the insurers position? Sympathetic or middle finger?
It's going to very much depend on your insurer & their attitude I'd imagine. No doubt if they are looking to avoid some liability they degree to which they do that would be proportional to your transgression, but it doesn't follow that because you are speeding that they will definitely try & avoid paying out.
Isn't that a bit dangerously vague then?
We all know that if you break the speed limit and get caught, you get the points and pay the fine (quiet at the back). But what we don't know is whether, in the case of a crash, your insurance will wipe their hands of you.
I've just sat here and read my Norwich Union policy document.
Nowhere does it state any exclusion for a driver breaking the law in respect of the driving of a motor vehicle. The only exclusion seems to be that they won't pay out for damage caused by an attempted suicide or a suicide (by someone else driving your car).
If you think about it, most damage is caused by one of the vehicles involved in an accident being driven outside the legal requirements. If you drive into the back of the car in front then you have driven carelessly. This would not invalidate your fully comp cover.
The contract of insurance and the underwriting risks include for all of this and the premiums reflect the overall cost of all driving errors, whether the RTA was being breached or not.
Many believe that an untaxed car is not insured. This is another urban myth. There is no co-relation between the revenue offence of not having road tax and the contract to insure your car. Having no MoT does not invalidate the cover either, although driving a knowingly unsafe car could as you are required to inform the insurer of any change of risk and knowing your car has a major fault BEFORE you drive off in it is a known change of risk.
Nowhere does it state any exclusion for a driver breaking the law in respect of the driving of a motor vehicle. The only exclusion seems to be that they won't pay out for damage caused by an attempted suicide or a suicide (by someone else driving your car).
If you think about it, most damage is caused by one of the vehicles involved in an accident being driven outside the legal requirements. If you drive into the back of the car in front then you have driven carelessly. This would not invalidate your fully comp cover.
The contract of insurance and the underwriting risks include for all of this and the premiums reflect the overall cost of all driving errors, whether the RTA was being breached or not.
Many believe that an untaxed car is not insured. This is another urban myth. There is no co-relation between the revenue offence of not having road tax and the contract to insure your car. Having no MoT does not invalidate the cover either, although driving a knowingly unsafe car could as you are required to inform the insurer of any change of risk and knowing your car has a major fault BEFORE you drive off in it is a known change of risk.
The Dude said:
The mystery deepens....
In what way?
If insurance was invalid for every minor breach of motoring law (include the RTA's, C & U, Speeding, etc), then the majority of cars on the road would not be covered. The idea of fully comprehensive insurance is to cover you in the event that a mistake made by you results in a quantified material loss. A mistake resulting in a loss will amost invariably have included an illegal act such as driving without due care and attention, failing to comply with a road sign, careless driving or something else that's illegal. Therefore, if a breach of driving law invalidated insurance there would be no point in having a fully comprehensive policy as you would never be able to claim for anything resulting from an error on your part since this would probably involve illegal driving on your part as well.
Perhaps in the case of Drunk Driving it could be said that you knew before you set off to drive that you were intoxicated and that you should have called the insurer to inform them of this fact in order to be covered (only joking), but if you drove outside the law during a journey then the cover is always in place.
Having or not having an MoT does not have any affect of the risk covered, since an MoT only confims that the vehicle was able to pass its test at a certain time on a certain day, in itself the document does not confirm or deny the safety of the vehicle. An MoT failure certificate is another matter and if the failure was due to safety (as opposed to emissions) then there could be a pre-known effect on the risk covered. In other words, if the tester found a rear brake cylinder was leaking badly, then if you drove it and crashed the insurer could say that you did not make them aware of a material change in risk inasmuch as the brakes were liable to fail to stop the vehicle properly.
Road tax does not affect the risk in any way, it's just a Revenue (Customs & Excise) matter.
This does seem a strange thread as the suggestion that breaking the law concerning driving during a journey could invalidate the insurance is clearly a non-starter and no insurer would ever do that. Imagine you are at a roundabout and the car in front does not go when it's safe. You run into the back in your shiny new DB9 and do £xxxxx worth of damage to the front of your car. Obviously the dent in your car was caused by your driving without due care and attention. Would you expect your claim to be rejected? Of course not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff