Nick Freeman in The Daily Mail
Discussion
Spouting absolute rubbish again:
“1. Driving during the lockdown could invalidate insurance
Car journeys are currently limited to essential travel. 'So if you have an accident and can`t prove your journey was essential, your insurance may be void,' says Nick.”
Surely this is absolute bulls
t. There is no way they can refuse to deal with any claim whether it’s own damage or third party citing the fact that their policyholder should not have been on the road.
“1. Driving during the lockdown could invalidate insurance
Car journeys are currently limited to essential travel. 'So if you have an accident and can`t prove your journey was essential, your insurance may be void,' says Nick.”
Surely this is absolute bulls
t. There is no way they can refuse to deal with any claim whether it’s own damage or third party citing the fact that their policyholder should not have been on the road.I read the rules and they say something along the lines of “reasons to leave the house include....”
My understanding of that, asking BV, if he’s available and cares to answer, is that is effectively covering the main likely reasons, but is not exhaustive, so other may apply. Otherwise surely it would be easier to have a list of preclusions that apply?
My understanding of that, asking BV, if he’s available and cares to answer, is that is effectively covering the main likely reasons, but is not exhaustive, so other may apply. Otherwise surely it would be easier to have a list of preclusions that apply?
Ignore Freeman. A statement from the Association of British Insurers:
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-...
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-...
agtlaw said:
Ignore Freeman. A statement from the Association of British Insurers:
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-...
I don't see that as addressing his point?https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-...
I could well imagine certain insurance companies we love to hate asking an "essential use" question for claims made in this period.
That article also contains that long-time PH fabvourite "Driving Other Cars is intended for short-term emergency use."!
Sheepshanks said:
I don't see that as addressing his point?
I could well imagine certain insurance companies we love to hate asking an "essential use" question for claims made in this period.
You imagine wrongly. Contract law has not been suspended during lockdown. Your policy is a contract. If it doesn't say in the policy that you can only use the car for essential journeys, then they can't enforce it. The govt says you can only use your car for essential journeys. They also say you can't do 31mph in a 30, but insurers don't reject those claims either, or claims for being hit whilst illegally parked. I could well imagine certain insurance companies we love to hate asking an "essential use" question for claims made in this period.
Programme on R4 a couple of days ago about insurance during this crisis. They also talked about home insurance for holiday homes. The upshot seemed to be that insurers will be required to be sensibly flexible in their dealing with claims. So I suppose if a second home is left unoccupied for more than the, say, 30 days in the policy, and there’s a burglary, that would be covered. But if dodgy build causes a problem that would’ve been noticed earlier, maybe not.
And as for the drop off in the social and pleasure use of cars, the response was maybe premiums will be cheaper next year because of it. Or... more expensive because when the lockdown is lifted everyone could hit the roads over the same couple of weekends and cause mayhem and deaths.
And as for the drop off in the social and pleasure use of cars, the response was maybe premiums will be cheaper next year because of it. Or... more expensive because when the lockdown is lifted everyone could hit the roads over the same couple of weekends and cause mayhem and deaths.
KungFuPanda said:
Tony1963 said:
berlintaxi said:
OP, the problem is reading the Daily Mail, stop that and your life will be infinitely better.
That’s common sense, and as we all know, DM readers struggle with that. berlintaxi said:
OP, the problem is reading the Daily Mail, stop that and your life will be infinitely better.
I read the Daily Mail, but also the Ipaper to act as a neutralising agent.(The Ipaper on Saturday has a fantastic full page general knowledge Xword. Has kept me busy all week thus occupying those erm....spare minutes we have now).
Edited by nonsequitur on Friday 3rd April 12:17
Police are a joke these days I am afraid.
They have now been found to filed (Transport Police) £660 fine was filed incorrectly under CV19 law and is now being set aside.
I had the police come to my house as my daughters(stay with me all the time) were over and someone called them saying I had a load of of people over.
They came to my door would not respect social distancing, had no face masks, no gloves and put myself and children at unnecessary risk
They have now been found to filed (Transport Police) £660 fine was filed incorrectly under CV19 law and is now being set aside.
I had the police come to my house as my daughters(stay with me all the time) were over and someone called them saying I had a load of of people over.
They came to my door would not respect social distancing, had no face masks, no gloves and put myself and children at unnecessary risk
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff