THE EASY WAY: All the Forum's best tips go in MoneySavingExpert's weekly E-mail Plus you'll get all the new guides, deals and loopholes. It's free & spam free
IMPORTANT! This forum isn't moderated. If you spot a spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post or PM please email abuse@moneysavingexpert.com
Remember, this is an open forum! Anyone can post so always exercise caution when acting on info. Don't post links for personal gain. Except in the referrers section and always declare any interest.
Er, I know the implications of section 147(1) of the Road Traffic Act, thanks.
You might want to do some further reading, notably the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risk) Regulations 1972, the piece of legislation that actually lays down which conditions have to be specified upon the certificate of motor insurance.
You might want to also recognise that these are statutory obligations that do not in any way impinge the insurer's right to insert contractual terms as they see fit. Have you read a policy booklet yet? Perhaps you could link to one which contains no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section that do not appear on the certificate. I won't be holding my breath on that one.
I ought to let to know that I am a motor insurance underwriter. I'd be interested to know of any relevant experience you have yourself.
Last edited by raskazz; 03-11-2009 at 8:00 PM..
The Following User Says Thank You to raskazz For This Useful Post:Show me >>
Er, I know the implications of section 147(1) of the Road Traffic Act, thanks.
You might want to do some further reading, notably the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risk) Regulations 1972, the piece of legislation that actually lays down which conditions have to be specified upon the certificate of motor insurance.
You might want to also recognise that these are statutory obligations that do not in any way impinge the insurer's right to insert contractual terms as they see fit. Have you read a policy booklet yet? Perhaps you could link to one which contains no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section that do not appear on the certificate. I won't be holding my breath on that one.
I ought to let to know that I am a motor insurance underwriter. I'd be interested to know of any relevant experience you have yourself.
The law states all conditions were third party securities are withdrawn are stated clearly on the certificate. Doesn't matter what the policy booklet states if the certificate offers drive other cars extension and doesn't list exclusions of cover.
As an underwriter you must agree with that, the insurer would be liable for the third party damage by its own certificate wording.
The law states all conditions were third party securities are withdrawn are stated clearly on the certificate.
"Third party securities"? What are they? Do you mean "Third party liabilities"?
The law does not state that all conditions are stated clearly on the certificate.
What the law actually does is:
- specify which details have to be present on the certificate (i.e. certificate number, policyholder name, vehicle description, effective date/time of commencement and expiry, entitlement to drive, limitations as to use, declaration/signature) [Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972].
- specify several conditions which exclude or purport to exclude third party liabilites which the insurer cannot rely upon to avoid a third party liability [s.148 Road Traffic Act 1988].
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastra
Doesn't matter what the policy booklet states if the certificate offers drive other cars extension and doesn't list exclusions of cover.
Absolute, complete and utter garbage. The operation of RTA liabilities under the driving other cars extension is not the same as the operation of RTA liabilities for the vehicles specifically referred to in the certificate.
It is a matter of fact that where an insurer specifies that driving other cars is contingent upon the possession of the specified vehicle, no liabilities (RTA or otherwise) will attach to them if the insured is not in possession of the specified vehicle and drives another vehicle under the mistaken belief that the extension is still in operation
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastra
As an underwriter you must agree with that, the insurer would be liable for the third party damage by its own certificate wording.
No, I do not agree with that, because it is not in fact correct.
"Third party securities"? What are they? Do you mean "Third party liabilities"?
The law does not state that all conditions are stated clearly on the certificate.
What the law actually does is:
- specify which details have to be present on the certificate (i.e. certificate number, policyholder name, vehicle description, effective date/time of commencement and expiry, entitlement to drive, limitations as to use, declaration/signature) [Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972].
- specify several conditions which exclude or purport to exclude third party liabilites which the insurer cannot rely upon to avoid a third party liability [s.158 Road Traffic Act 1988].
Absolute, complete and utter garbage. The operation of RTA liabilities under the driving other cars extension is not the same as the operation of RTA liabilities for the vehicles specifically referred to in the certificate.
It is a matter of fact that where an insurer specifies that where driving other cars is contingent upon the possession of the specified vehicle, no liabilities (RTA or otherwise) will attach to them if the insured is not in possession of the specified vehicle and drives another vehicle under the mistaken belief that the extension is still in operation
No, I do not agree with that, because it is not in fact correct.
You have so far failed to offer any substance to your debate other than your own personal opinion.
The Following User Says Thank You to pastra For This Useful Post:Show me >>
You have so far failed to offer any substance to your debate other than your own personal opinion.
Ah, so instead of addressing the points that I raise you are going to take your ball home and dismiss them as 'opinion'? I 'thanked' your post as it did make me laugh.
Ah, so instead of addressing the points that I raise you are going to take your ball home and dismiss them as 'opinion'? I 'thanked' your post as it did make me laugh.
What more can I do, have have stated the law. I am just repeating myself, if the wording on a certificate offers cover the exclusions must also be on the wording.
Nowhere in the road traffic act does it allow insurers to offer cover on the cert and not note the exclusions.
What more can I do, have have stated the law. I am just repeating myself, if the wording on a certificate offers cover the exclusions must also be on the wording.
Nowhere in the road traffic act does it allow insurers to offer cover on the cert and not note the exclusions.
You are either being ignorant or disingenuous, I'm not sure which. Have you actually read the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations yet? Or have you found a policy wording which has no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section other than those on the certificate of insurance?
Even if we do carry on in ever-decreasing circles on these points, what cannot be disputed is that your advice to the OP was incorrect and irresponsible. Even if somehow an RTA liability did attach from the OP's use of another vehicle (which it would not do for the reason I gave above), the insurer would exercise its right of recovery against the OP, potentially resulting in financial ruin. I suggest that you stop digging.
Again, may I ask what relevant expertise/qualifications you hold, this may assist impartial forum members in deciding whose argument they should attach any weight to?
Last edited by raskazz; 03-11-2009 at 9:16 PM..
The Following User Says Thank You to raskazz For This Useful Post:Show me >>
You are either being ignorant or disingenuous, I'm not sure which. Have you actually read the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations yet? Or have you found a policy wording which has no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section other than those on the certificate of insurance?
Even if we do carry on in ever-decreasing circles on these points, what cannot be disputed is that your advice to the OP was incorrect and irresponsible. Even if somehow an RTA liability did attach from the OP's use of another vehicle (which it would not do for the reason I gave above), the insurer would exercise its right of recovery against the OP, potentially resulting in financial ruin. I suggest that you stop digging.
Again, may I ask what relevant expertise/qualifications you hold, this may assist impartial forum member in deciding whose argument they should attach any weight to?
I am a personal lines underwriter.
Recovery from the OP would be paid at very low weekly amounts and would be of no benefit to the insurance firm or cause financial ruin.
I was under the impression that if you drive another car on your policy, that car still has to be insured by someone else anyway. So it's kind of irrelevant if the subject car exists or not as it wouldn't be valid anyway for that reason.
Personal lines? Does that include motor or is that simply a slippery way of saying 'household' but implying that you also deal with motor? Any CII qualifications, specifically including Motor Insurance units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastra
Recovery from the OP would be paid at very low weekly amounts and would be of no benefit to the insurance firm or cause financial ruin.
Really? Do you know what assets the OP holds and what income he or she earns then?
I really think you should stop now. This is embarrassing. Again, your advice to the OP was incorrect and irresponsible. Why not just admit it? I cannot believe that any competent motor underwriter would make such a glaring error.
Location: Candy Mountain, in a land of joy and joyness.
Post Count: 1,347
Thanked 1,351 Times in 709 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastra
What more can I do, have have stated the law. I am just repeating myself, if the wording on a certificate offers cover the exclusions must also be on the wording.
Nowhere in the road traffic act does it allow insurers to offer cover on the cert and not note the exclusions.
You remind me of the "doorstep lawyer" types I used to meet all the time when I worked as a county court bailiff.
I am opinionated and rather blunt.
This site doesn't check my status as opinionated and blunt, so you need to take my word for it (or use the search function). Any advice or thoughts I give on matters involving debt and recovery processes should be considered as nothing more than the opinionof someone who usedto be a bailiff a long time ago.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RobertoMoir For This Useful Post:Show me >>
Personal lines? Does that include motor or is that simply a slippery way of saying 'household' but implying that you also deal with motor? Any CII qualifications, specifically including Motor Insurance units?
.
It includes motor, I have all relevant qualifications to do my job and don't feel the need to state i hold some CII qualifiactions. I am guessing you have the "certificate in insurance"
In that case I am shocked that an insurer has employed someone in a technical role who possesses so little technical knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastra
I have all relevant qualifications to do my job and don't feel the need to state i hold some CII qualifiactions. I am guessing you have the "certificate in insurance"
So that's a 'no' then. I did start off with the Certificate as it happens (with an average of 93%, including 100% in one of them), although I subsequently passed the Diploma (including unit 765 which incidentally is an Advanced Diploma unit in Motor Insurance) and am progressing through ACII.
I don't know why you are apparently treating the Certificate with such derision - it clearly contains material which has thus far eluded yourself. In fact I would recommend that you take some CII courses. Then you actually might know what you're talking about.
I was under the impression that if you drive another car on your policy, that car still has to be insured by someone else anyway. So it's kind of irrelevant if the subject car exists or not as it wouldn't be valid anyway for that reason.
Not according to mine (More Than). It states my driving other cars dosn't apply if I am securing the release of a vehicle siezed by government or public authority that does not have an existing policy. Other than that here is no requirement that the vehicle is insured under another policy, only that it is not owned by me or my partner, and I have permission from the owner to do so.
To return to the original question, there is nothing specific stating that I must actually own the car - there is a requirement to maintain it, does that count?
Andy
The Following User Says Thank You to axomoxia For This Useful Post:Show me >>
Not according to mine (More Than). It states my driving other cars dosn't apply if I am securing the release of a vehicle siezed by government or public authority that does not have an existing policy. Other than that here is no requirement that the vehicle is insured under another policy, only that it is not owned by me or my partner, and I have permission from the owner to do so.
To return to the original question, there is nothing specific stating that I must actually own the car - there is a requirement to maintain it, does that count?
Andy
You're right, the More Than policy wording is one of the few which does not specify this. Obviously one would also have to check the wording on the certificate also.
If the More Than policy does not stipulate on the certificate that driving other cars is contingent upon you being in possession of the specified vehicle then you are covered to drive other cars as long as the other conditions are met. They may try to reject any claim on the basis that the policy no longer has any subject matter but they would not be able to do so - there is a case called Dodson v. Dodson Insurance Services which confirms this.
I've just done a quick check - both RAC and Quik-fit do not require there to be another insurance policy in force when using DOC cover. However you do need to own the car for the RAC to cover you. Although you could just leave it moldering on the drive if it expires.....
I didn't see anything to say "notify us if you dispose the vehicle". There is certainly a long list of things they insist you tell them about....
I have a question.... Why would anyone want to "insure" something that they no longer have?
To me makes perfect sense to cancel the policy... Would be ideal if the insurer would be able to suspend policies but not many people do that and insist (underwriters) on policy being cancelled!
I have a question.... Why would anyone want to "insure" something that they no longer have?
1) Depending on the admin/cancellation charges involved, and the length of time till renewal it is sometimes cheaper to let the policy continue than to cancel it.
2) If you keep the policy running, and haven't made any claims, then your NCD will get another year added if the policy is kept alive till expiry.
You're right, the More Than policy wording is one of the few which does not specify this. Obviously one would also have to check the wording on the certificate also.
If the More Than policy does not stipulate on the certificate that driving other cars is contingent upon you being in possession of the specified vehicle then you are covered to drive other cars as long as the other conditions are met. They may try to reject any claim on the basis that the policy no longer has any subject matter but they would not be able to do so - there is a case called Dodson v. Dodson Insurance Services which confirms this.
Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps. Take care over copyright. Use excerpts and links rather than copying long text. This site asserts copyright on all comments posted on the board.
Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps.
Kitten due 12/12/09 
Linear Mode
