Inurance Question
Discussion
I would have thought that as you have no insurance that you would technically be in a postion that you should not be on a road. As such the insurance company (and me if it was me that hit you) would argue that if you had been obeying the law they you would not have been subject to an accident.
In the same way a drink driver is always at fault even if they are not.
Only a personal view I don't know if its right.
In the same way a drink driver is always at fault even if they are not.
Only a personal view I don't know if its right.
The uninsured could claim direct through the fault parties insurer.
Perhaps they may realise he isnt insured, which doesnt make a difference to the claim, and perhaps not, and if they do they may tell the police, who knows.
Do you think someone in a call centre, struggling to keep their call time down, answer as many calls in a hour that they have to, keep their off-line time down to 3% etc is going to do all that?
Perhaps they may realise he isnt insured, which doesnt make a difference to the claim, and perhaps not, and if they do they may tell the police, who knows.
Do you think someone in a call centre, struggling to keep their call time down, answer as many calls in a hour that they have to, keep their off-line time down to 3% etc is going to do all that?
Mr_annie_vxr said:
I would have thought that as you have no insurance that you would technically be in a postion that you should not be on a road. As such the insurance company (and me if it was me that hit you) would argue that if you had been obeying the law they you would not have been subject to an accident.
In the same way a drink driver is always at fault even if they are not.
Only a personal view I don't know if its right.
Agreed. In the same way a drink driver is always at fault even if they are not.
Only a personal view I don't know if its right.
But im 100% positive you can claim but as i mentioned before there insurance company will inform you guys(BiB) about him holding no policy
The reason im so positive is because this happened to a colleague of mine a while back. He borrowed a mates car assuming his own policy covered him on all cars, (assumption being the mother of all 
ups) and was consequently rear ended. He still claimed against the other fella and got the money for the car but at the same time was banned for six months and ordered to take a retest.
ups) and was consequently rear ended. He still claimed against the other fella and got the money for the car but at the same time was banned for six months and ordered to take a retest.Mr_annie_vxr said:
I would have thought that as you have no insurance that you would technically be in a postion that you should not be on a road. As such the insurance company (and me if it was me that hit you) would argue that if you had been obeying the law they you would not have been subject to an accident.
In the same way a drink driver is always at fault even if they are not.
Only a personal view I don't know if its right.
Interesting though, because I see where you're coming from but at the same time where do you draw the line? E.g. if in an accident one guy is speeding, but the accident was not his fault, should he be blamed anyway because he was breaking the law?In the same way a drink driver is always at fault even if they are not.
Only a personal view I don't know if its right.
I realise that we do make a distinction here between speeding (when safe to do so, it's an arbitrary limit, etc) and cases such as no insurance or drink driving.
There's kind of 2 points I can think of there - 1, the law cannot draw the line arbitrarily and presumably it has to sit either fully on one side or the other (e.g. you are automatically blamed in 100% of the cases, or alternatively you are never automatically blamed, but the actual cause of the accident is investigated and blame apportioned via that). 2, the line we are drawing (I am assuming we draw the line at the distinction I say we make, above) is our line and our opinion - and unfortunately not everyone has that opinion. On another forum, another thread is taking place about how speeders should automatically be blamed in an accident because they are breaking the law
I guess the last thing I'd say is a bit controversial so apologies in advance
but I believe you should only be punished for what you have done. So, I'd say that in an accident where the fault party was insured and the non-fault party wasn't, the fault party would shoulder the blame for the accident whereas the non-fault party would shoulder the consequences of having no insurance. I would have thought this would apply in drink-drive cases too - but that's not to say they should get off in any way, not at all, but they should only be punished for what they have done. So if they didn't cause the accident (and that's probably a very slim chance!) they shouldn't be blamed for it (in terms of shouldering responsibility for the claim).I think it comes down to contract law. You insure so that if you accidentally cause a loss to another party, your insurer and not you has to pay out. The legality of the other party and his own cover are not a factor in the losses you may have caused.
For example, if you crashed into someone's house and they did not have buildings or contents cover, you would still be liable to pay for the damage - well, your insurer would.
However, you could expect to have to fight a legal battle to get paid out if another vehicle was involved and you had no 3rd party cover yourself as well as a possible 'driving whilst uninsured' case too.
For example, if you crashed into someone's house and they did not have buildings or contents cover, you would still be liable to pay for the damage - well, your insurer would.
However, you could expect to have to fight a legal battle to get paid out if another vehicle was involved and you had no 3rd party cover yourself as well as a possible 'driving whilst uninsured' case too.
Cooperman said:
I think it comes down to contract law. You insure so that if you accidentally cause a loss to another party, your insurer and not you has to pay out. The legality of the other party and his own cover are not a factor in the losses you may have caused.
For example, if you crashed into someone's house and they did not have buildings or contents cover, you would still be liable to pay for the damage - well, your insurer would.
However, you could expect to have to fight a legal battle to get paid out if another vehicle was involved and you had no 3rd party cover yourself as well as a possible 'driving whilst uninsured' case too.
Yes, this is the legal situation.For example, if you crashed into someone's house and they did not have buildings or contents cover, you would still be liable to pay for the damage - well, your insurer would.
However, you could expect to have to fight a legal battle to get paid out if another vehicle was involved and you had no 3rd party cover yourself as well as a possible 'driving whilst uninsured' case too.
Technically if it is a non-fault claim 100% then legally the other party has been negligent and is legally liable for your damages like costs of repairs etc.
If they have insurance, their contract with the insurer is that they pay on behalf of them.
The problem is that as they are constantly looking for reasons NOT to pay out - there is in fact a whole department for it. If they find out that you dont have insurance of your own, then if the other party did not accept the claim 100% then you would be screwed.
They would find out and most likely use it against you, and probably have a duty to report the incident to the police.
Not really pertinant to the way the discussion is going but: -
If you had deposited your X thousand pounds with the chancellor then you would not be insured, you would not need it. Based upon the possibly archaic view that larger concerns (Royal Mail, Police etc.) don't need insurance because on average their premiums would exceed their own liabilities.
If somebody ran into your rear-end then you must be able to claim from them.
Insurance is a game of probabilities so if you are large enough you can "self insure" and win in the long term.
Russ
If you had deposited your X thousand pounds with the chancellor then you would not be insured, you would not need it. Based upon the possibly archaic view that larger concerns (Royal Mail, Police etc.) don't need insurance because on average their premiums would exceed their own liabilities.
If somebody ran into your rear-end then you must be able to claim from them.
Insurance is a game of probabilities so if you are large enough you can "self insure" and win in the long term.
Russ
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff