Motor Trade Insurance question
Discussion
Not sure which section is best to post this, but it probably is a legal question so thought I would post here.
I had a small bump on Saturday, just catching another car putting a small dent in it. At the time I did wonder about the insurance situation of the other driver but didn't ask enough questions. Anyway, it turns out the car is owned by his brother and covered on a Motor Trade Policy. As the accident was at 7pm on a Saturday evening and there were four people in the car, none of which was the policy holder as far as I am aware, is it likely that the driver actually was insured? I guess he may have his own policy which would cover him and am trying to establish the exact situation, but would appreciate any thoughts people may have.
Cheers
Andy
I had a small bump on Saturday, just catching another car putting a small dent in it. At the time I did wonder about the insurance situation of the other driver but didn't ask enough questions. Anyway, it turns out the car is owned by his brother and covered on a Motor Trade Policy. As the accident was at 7pm on a Saturday evening and there were four people in the car, none of which was the policy holder as far as I am aware, is it likely that the driver actually was insured? I guess he may have his own policy which would cover him and am trying to establish the exact situation, but would appreciate any thoughts people may have.
Cheers
Andy
The original post said that the OP 'just caught another car and put a small dent in it'. Does this mean that the OP's car was at fault? If this is so, why would the insurance status of the other driver, who may not have been responsible for the damage, be of any consequence to the OP? The only thing the OP could achieve would be the incrimination of the other driver in a completely different charge of being uninsured. Whilst in itself an offence, one can't see why any driver would want to cause additional hardship to a third party after damaging their car.
A lot of trade policies do cover the trader for 3rd party risks whilst the vehicles they own, as opposed to vehicles under their care for repair, are being driven by others, for all S.D.& P.uses as well as for test drives.
A lot of trade policies do cover the trader for 3rd party risks whilst the vehicles they own, as opposed to vehicles under their care for repair, are being driven by others, for all S.D.& P.uses as well as for test drives.
I accept that the accident could be viewed as my fault. Whilst I don't want to cause any additional hardship to the person driving the car I hit if it was, I do feel that there has to be an element of fault on his part if he was not covered by insurance - by rights, if he was not insured he should not have been on the road, therefore I would not have hit him! I don't know what the legal situation is as regards to this, but it is something I would like to have knowledge of in case it becomes reality in this situation. My feeling, from what I have been told so far, is that he is trying to claim he was insured through a route which sounds dubious to me - the car owned by and covered on his brothers trade policy, him driving it based on cover from a policy of his own, but he has indicated to me that he does not have a vehicle other than the one he was driving and therefore is unlikely to have a policy of his own.
Edited by andyps on Wednesday 21st November 13:41
If you were to blame for the accident, I would keep quiet about the whole episode. Just pay for the damage to your own vehicle and wait to see what happens. It is unlikely he is insured, .... all motor trade policies cover named drivers only, and the only time an un-named driver can drive is when they are test driving the vehicle accompanied by a named driver on the policy! The Insurance companies have tightened up considerably over the last few years, so much so that I could always include my partner/common law wife, live in girlfriend, casual leg-over and whoever on my policy. Now, if I want to include anyone, I have to pay the same amount as I pay, to include every individual, making it very expensive for anyone trying to find a cheap loophole!!
I think I would probably report the incident to the police, and they can soon tell if it is insured, from the ANPR database, or at least have an idea! At the same time it would clear yourself in the event of some "skeletons in the cupboard" at a later date!!
The fact he may not have been insured, would have no bearing on the fact he shouldn't have been there!! If you would have killed him. the claim would have dropped on your toes!!
I think I would probably report the incident to the police, and they can soon tell if it is insured, from the ANPR database, or at least have an idea! At the same time it would clear yourself in the event of some "skeletons in the cupboard" at a later date!!
The fact he may not have been insured, would have no bearing on the fact he shouldn't have been there!! If you would have killed him. the claim would have dropped on your toes!!
ineedagallardo said:
From experience if the car is registered to the Holder who owns the motor trader policy then the fella driving the car will be covered.
Motor trader policys usually dictate that any one is covered to drive the car as long as they have permission of the policy holder.
The car however must be registered to the policy holder for this to be valid.
If that were the case, you could make a good business out of registering 17 year old driver's cars in the traders name, and charging half of the £2500 they would have to find to drive their 1.2 Clio. I don't think so somehow, the insurance companies are fairly bright, you know!!!Motor trader policys usually dictate that any one is covered to drive the car as long as they have permission of the policy holder.
The car however must be registered to the policy holder for this to be valid.
Edited by ineedagallardo on Tuesday 13th November 15:56
Is his actual level of insurance a material fact in the cause and liability in this accident? If he caused the acident, then you would wish to claim from his insurers to avoid loss of your NCD. However, from what you have said, it's the other way around. If one were being cynical, one might think that you were questioning his levelm of cover in order to avoid paying out for damage for which you are responsible.
Since there was no personal injury involved, neither his insurer nor the police would really be involved.
If you lent your car to someone, and then someone else ran into it and damaged it, one might think that you would expect the person causing the damage to simply pay up and not start questioning your insurance cover in order to avoid responsibility. At the end of the day, if the other person has 3 additional witnesses and the owner is in the motor trade, one might expect any 'wriggling' to result in a claim in the County Court at which time the ninsurance status of the third party's vehicle will not be an issue. all that will be at issue is who was to blame and what are the damages plus court costs of both parties.
For all you know, the motor trade policy covers the owner of the business and any/all employees. It's my guess that his brother is, or could easily be deemed an 'employee', or could rapidly have become one if necessary.
My nephew works as an employee in the motor trade and often come over in a variety of cars owned by his employer and covered on the business policy. This includes weekends and evenings.
Since there was no personal injury involved, neither his insurer nor the police would really be involved.
If you lent your car to someone, and then someone else ran into it and damaged it, one might think that you would expect the person causing the damage to simply pay up and not start questioning your insurance cover in order to avoid responsibility. At the end of the day, if the other person has 3 additional witnesses and the owner is in the motor trade, one might expect any 'wriggling' to result in a claim in the County Court at which time the ninsurance status of the third party's vehicle will not be an issue. all that will be at issue is who was to blame and what are the damages plus court costs of both parties.
For all you know, the motor trade policy covers the owner of the business and any/all employees. It's my guess that his brother is, or could easily be deemed an 'employee', or could rapidly have become one if necessary.
My nephew works as an employee in the motor trade and often come over in a variety of cars owned by his employer and covered on the business policy. This includes weekends and evenings.
I am not trying to get out of any responsibilities I may have - I accept that I may have caused damage and if I have, should be responsible for putting this right. My concern is that once insurance companies start to get involved costs can increase dramatically. The damage caused was the sort which a small garage would probably fix in a perfectly acceptable way for about £100 - £150, but the way insurers use the large places who automatically replace panels the cost will be much higher, and will actually probably end up with his car being written off (it ia an M reg Golf). If it turns out that he is not insured I stand more chance of ensuring it goes to such a garage and I will happily pay the bill for repair as it would almost certainly be less than my excess. I am just wanting to check where I stand on the whole issue - do I have a bit of leverage to get it repaired in a way favourable to me rather than him in other words.
Edited by andyps on Wednesday 21st November 13:43
ineedagallardo said:
ginettajoe said:
ineedagallardo said:
From experience if the car is registered to the Holder who owns the motor trader policy then the fella driving the car will be covered.
Motor trader policys usually dictate that any one is covered to drive the car as long as they have permission of the policy holder.
The car however must be registered to the policy holder for this to be valid.
If that were the case, you could make a good business out of registering 17 year old driver's cars in the traders name, and charging half of the £2500 they would have to find to drive their 1.2 Clio. I don't think so somehow, the insurance companies are fairly bright, you know!!!Motor trader policys usually dictate that any one is covered to drive the car as long as they have permission of the policy holder.
The car however must be registered to the policy holder for this to be valid.
Edited by ineedagallardo on Tuesday 13th November 15:56
My Norwich union Motor Vehicle trade policy clearly states on the cover note that,
Anyone with the permission of the policy holder can drive under the cover.
Like I said though the vehicle has to be registered to the policy holder.
Oh and my broker confirmed this to me verbaly and in writing
Edited by ineedagallardo on Tuesday 13th November 16:28
If he wasn't insured I would hope that I do not become responsible for the cost of a hire car though - that would seem unfair if I have to provide transport (obviously through my insurance policy) to keep someone on the road who had no right to be there to start with. Waiting to hear from him about the specifics of how he thinks he was insured - I have asked him for the details of his policy and cover.
Since it sounds as though you are the one responsible, he has no reason to give you any details of his insurance really.
Again, his insurance status has no bearing on your responsibility.
To take another example: If you drove into someone's house and damaged the wall, would you require to know with whom he had his house insured? It would be irrelevant to both the damage and the claim, unless the house moved out into the road and crashed into you.
There is going to be a claim against you. What you have to decide is whether to pay it yourself or go through your insurer. If the 3rd party suffers any loss as a result, then that cost will be against you or your insurer, including a hire car where needed. It does look like a claim against your insurer in view of the likely costs involved. Whether or not the 3rd party has cover is a matter your insurer may or may not have an interest in, but that's up to them.
Presumably you will be receiving a claim from the other party. My advice is to inform your insurer of the material facts now, send any documents you receive to your insurer, inform the 3rd party that you are doing this and suggest that they contact either your insurer or theirs to progress this matter, then just forget about it (until renewal time!). You pay your insurance so that this sort of stress in taken away from you - that's what insurance if far, afterall.
Again, his insurance status has no bearing on your responsibility.
To take another example: If you drove into someone's house and damaged the wall, would you require to know with whom he had his house insured? It would be irrelevant to both the damage and the claim, unless the house moved out into the road and crashed into you.
There is going to be a claim against you. What you have to decide is whether to pay it yourself or go through your insurer. If the 3rd party suffers any loss as a result, then that cost will be against you or your insurer, including a hire car where needed. It does look like a claim against your insurer in view of the likely costs involved. Whether or not the 3rd party has cover is a matter your insurer may or may not have an interest in, but that's up to them.
Presumably you will be receiving a claim from the other party. My advice is to inform your insurer of the material facts now, send any documents you receive to your insurer, inform the 3rd party that you are doing this and suggest that they contact either your insurer or theirs to progress this matter, then just forget about it (until renewal time!). You pay your insurance so that this sort of stress in taken away from you - that's what insurance if far, afterall.
That is basically what I have done. Not sure that an uninsured driver should be entitled to a hire car though. If that is the case I think there is a fault with the law somehow - you are not legally entitled to be on the road, so why should you get that entitlement just because someone has damaged your uninsured car? Similar to someone breaking into your house and then asking for compensation because they fell down your stairs and broke their leg - I know it happens but it can't possibly be right.
It's the legsl owner who will be claiming damages for his inability to have 'quiet enjoyment' of his property, since the damage was caused by someone else. This will include the hire of an alternative vehicle.
Anyway, it's not the OP who will be paying, it's his insurer. He will already have a claim against him for the damage, so it's really immaterial whether a hire car is included in the payout to the owner. His premiun increase will be for one claim in the current year.
So far it has not been established whether the 3rd party was insured or not.
Surely it's not advisable to go to the Old Bill and say that following your admitted careless driving, which actually caused an accident and some damage, you think the other driver, who was not at fault, was not insured. The DVLA may well not have evidence of insurance as it's a trade policy here and the vehicles owned by a trader may well not be registered in his/her name, especially if they are for sale. That situation is covered in the RTA's and the DVLA registration laws.
Remember, you are not required to give your insurance details to another driver in a non-injury accident, just your name and address. It does not need to be reported to the Police unless there is injury involved. You are, however, required to inform your own insurer, although if you don't make a claim, your NCD is not affected in any way.
Anyway, it's not the OP who will be paying, it's his insurer. He will already have a claim against him for the damage, so it's really immaterial whether a hire car is included in the payout to the owner. His premiun increase will be for one claim in the current year.
So far it has not been established whether the 3rd party was insured or not.
Surely it's not advisable to go to the Old Bill and say that following your admitted careless driving, which actually caused an accident and some damage, you think the other driver, who was not at fault, was not insured. The DVLA may well not have evidence of insurance as it's a trade policy here and the vehicles owned by a trader may well not be registered in his/her name, especially if they are for sale. That situation is covered in the RTA's and the DVLA registration laws.
Remember, you are not required to give your insurance details to another driver in a non-injury accident, just your name and address. It does not need to be reported to the Police unless there is injury involved. You are, however, required to inform your own insurer, although if you don't make a claim, your NCD is not affected in any way.
You may not have to give your insurance details, and I didn't. But, as I am not insured on a Motor Trade policy my insurance details are on the database which is accessible to the industry. Therefore, his insurers already know who I am insured with (and have confirmed the details to me) but I and my insurance company are unable to get his insurance details due to the nature of the policy.
What really frustrates me is that 18 months ago I was hit by a driver who appears to not have insurance and therefore I have still not been paid out for the damage caused and the driver has so far got away with it (court summons is hopefully going out soon from my insurers) so I have been out of pocket for all this time. If I am responsible for hitting an uninsured driver he gets an almost immediate payout. Does make me wonder why I follow the rules and pay so much each year when the system seems to favour, and not penalise, those who don't. I have never seen a fine imposed for lack of insurance which is as high as my premium (with a good record and full ncb).
What really frustrates me is that 18 months ago I was hit by a driver who appears to not have insurance and therefore I have still not been paid out for the damage caused and the driver has so far got away with it (court summons is hopefully going out soon from my insurers) so I have been out of pocket for all this time. If I am responsible for hitting an uninsured driver he gets an almost immediate payout. Does make me wonder why I follow the rules and pay so much each year when the system seems to favour, and not penalise, those who don't. I have never seen a fine imposed for lack of insurance which is as high as my premium (with a good record and full ncb).
Edited by andyps on Wednesday 21st November 13:46
I, too, have been hit by an uninsured driver and had to claim on my own policy. As I had a protected NCD it did not matter too much and the uninsured driver left the country so my insurer had no come-back on the individual.
It's a b****r when that happens, but that's life.
In your case I would just leave it to the insurer, as that's their business and they have underwritten the business. Just let them get on with it.
It's a b****r when that happens, but that's life.
In your case I would just leave it to the insurer, as that's their business and they have underwritten the business. Just let them get on with it.
Thanks for the help guys. My insurance company are dealing with it and say it is nothing to do with them whether he has insurance or even an MOT. The other person is trying to claim for an injury - given the circumstances I am not quite sure how anyone could possibly sustain an injusry so it highlights to me that he is trying to extract the most money possible from a minor incident. I asked him for details of his insurance and he said he would get back to me - strangely I haven't heard anything again indicating something to hide.
Looks like I may be stuck with an increase in premium next year for all my honesty, whilst someone who may well have been breaking various laws gets a large payout. Life sucks sometimes.
Looks like I may be stuck with an increase in premium next year for all my honesty, whilst someone who may well have been breaking various laws gets a large payout. Life sucks sometimes.
Edited by andyps on Wednesday 21st November 13:48
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff