help, my mot is overdue

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

You need to reread the linked to post then. All motor insurers are subject to FSA rules.

After reading the rule from the FSA again, I note it is only talking about how to deal with unroadworthy features on the vehicle. Basically saying that if it has bald tyre it would have to be shown that the bald tyre contributed to the accident in order for cover to be withdrawn. So if the car caught fire, they could not blame the tyre, and use any unroadworthy exclusion that is in the policy. However, if the policy specifically requires a valid MOT - where regulations require it - this would not become (for the insurance company) a decision based on whether or not an unroadworthy feature contributed to the accident, the decision to pay out on the claim, would consider if the car had an MOT, and if not, whether one was required.

Very few policies have this wording. I have changed my mind, I did think initially what you wrote last week, did address the issue of no MOT. But now I don't agree that it does. The quote from the FSA only relates to "no MOT" in such a way that lack of MOT cannot be said to make the car automatically unroadworthy.

I do still believe that anyone with such a policy should appeal to the ombudsman, but the judgement is not certain to go in the claimants direction.

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

After reading the rule from the FSA again, I note it is only talking about how to deal with unroadworthy features on the vehicle.

No, it isn't. The FSA rule applies to all warranties and conditions, and the rule is clear: An insurer can only repudiate a consumer's claim on grounds of breach of warranty or condition if the claim was connected with the circumstances of the breach.

Thus if an insurer includes a condition stating that the vehicle must hold a valid MOT, and if the insured vehicle does not have one, and is involved in an accident the insurer can only repudiate if the accident was caused or contributed to by lack of an MOT certificate.

As an MOT pass proves nothing other than the car was roadworthy on the date and at the time of the MOT test, it is clear that the absence of an MOT certificate cannot in itself cause or contribute to an accident, any more than say, the colour socks that the driver was wearing at the time if the accident.

Thus, even if the insurer includes a condition pertaining to holding a valid MOT, it always boils down to roadworthiness.

Wig

Ooops, upon reading it again, I see that you are right afterall, it was your words written after "thus" (in that post from last week) that confused me second time around.

On my third reading I realised the words after "thus" were yours not theirs.
Sorry, my bad.

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

No, it isn't. The FSA rule applies to all warranties and conditions, and the rule is clear: An insurer can only repudiate a consumer's claim on grounds of breach of warranty or condition if the claim was connected with the circumstances of the breach………Thus, even if the insurer includes a condition pertaining to holding a valid MOT, it always boils down to roadworthiness.

I can see your argument, and agree that lack of MOT can’t be used as evidence of lack of roadworthiness.

Where I am less sure is the question of breaches of explicit warranties and conditions, do you think this also applies to other conditions & terms in the policy?

“must hold or not be disqualified from holding a licence” So you get banned half way through the policy but keep the policy running so your wife can use the car?

“sdp and no use in connection with the motor sport or trade” you get a job racing or delivering motor parts?

I think that if I was an insurance company and given that insurance contacts are based on the quaint concept of “utmost good faith” I’d be tempted to argue that if explicit conditions are breached then the contact can be cancelled either from inception or from when the breach occurred. This also neatly gets around the FSA rule you quoted as that applies to claims handling and not cancellation of policies.

iolanthe07

It is extremely hard for insurers to get out of paying third party claims if the premium has been paid and the driver is properly licensed.

cyclonebri1

Motmac wrote: »

Gosh you lot are a bunch of well organised peeps.i've more than once forgot about my MOT and i'm an MOT tester:D

Where's the head banging emoticon:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

“must hold or not be disqualified from holding a licence” So you get banned half way through the policy but keep the policy running so your wife can use the car?

This would be a breach of utmost good faith not merely a breach of condition.

vaio wrote: »

“sdp and no use in connection with the motor sport or trade” you get a job racing or delivering motor parts?

Again that's a breach of utmost good faith, rather than simply a breach of condition, and if an accident occurred whilst the car was being used for a purpose not permitted under the policy it falls outside the scope of the policy's cover and thus would not be covered.

vaio wrote: »

I think that if I was an insurance company and given that insurance contacts are based on the quaint concept of “utmost good faith” I’d be tempted to argue that if explicit conditions are breached then the contact can be cancelled either from inception or from when the breach occurred. This also neatly gets around the FSA rule you quoted as that applies to claims handling and not cancellation of policies.

In contrast with the examples you used above, the question of an MOT certificate is not a matter of utmost good faith, as no questions are asked at quotation or inception as to MOT status, nor is there a policy condition instructing the policyholder to inform the insurer of any change in the car's MOT status. Thus a policy cannot be voided at any point due to the MOT status of the car.

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

………..In contrast with the examples you used above, the question of an MOT certificate is not a matter of utmost good faith, as no questions are asked at inception as to MOT status, nor is there a policy condition instructing the policyholder to inform the insurer of any change in the car's MOT status. Thus a policy cannot be voided at any point due to the MOT status of the car.

What makes a breach of an explicit condition (like MOT status) into a breach of utmost good faith (like changing job half way through a policy)?

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

What makes a breach of an explicit condition (like MOT status) into a breach of utmost good faith (like changing job half way through a policy)?

A breach of utmost good faith is where the insured has failed to disclose or misrepresented a material fact. As the insurer asks the insured their occupation at quotation/inception then it is a material fact, and a continuing requirement of utmost good faith applies to the insured to disclose any changes to the material facts given at quotation/inception. Utmost food faith is not a 'condition', it is a common law principle applying to insurance contracts, so breaches of it do not fall under the scope of the FSA's rule on conditions and warranties.

The insurer does not ask any questions regarding the MOT status of the car at quotation or inception and does not instruct the insured to notify them of any change in the MOT status of the car. Thus the insured cannot breach utmost good faith on this matter as at no point are they asked to disclose any information as to the MOT status of the car.

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

………The insurer does not ask any questions regarding the MOT status of the car at quotation or inception and does not instruct the insured to notify them of any change in the MOT status of the car. Thus the insured cannot breach utmost good faith on this matter as at no point are they asked to disclose any information as to the MOT status of the car.

I thought the “utmost good faith” concept had been held to be anything which might cause an insurer to decline or impose different terms on a policy and applies even if the insurer does specifically ask about something.

Given that cars on which the MOT has not been renewed tend to have more accidents and more serious accidents it could be argued that MOT status falls within this area.

What we need is a high enough value test case for an insurance company to pitch the FSA against common law and clarify it.