Do you HAVE to cancel car insurance

Quentin

pastra wrote: »

A certificate is the legal document that must contain all the exclusions that apply to the offer of cover against third party damage and loss as required by the RTA. If an insurer writes on a cert that you have driving other cars cover, then it must also include the terms/conditions of that cover.

All the police and courts are interested in is your 3rd party liability cover and what does it say on your cert.

No.

You are misinforming us.

eg. Often driving other cars cover does not cover releasing seized cars. This isn't mentioned on the cert (which according to you is all the police are interested in), but is covered by the policy exclusions.

pastra

Quentin wrote: »

No.

You are misinforming us.

eg. Often driving other cars cover does not cover releasing seized cars. This isn't mentioned on the cert (which according to you is all the police are interested in), but is covered by the policy exclusions.

Releasing seized vehicles is on the cert.

raskazz

pastra wrote: »

You wont be able to write on a cert that you offer that cover and then make exclusions in the policy wording. If there are restrictions to the third party liability it must be on the cert of insurance.

Absolute rubbish. Just look inside a policy booklet and see how many clauses there are in the 'liability to others' section and how many general exclusions there are which do not appear on the certificate.

As for the RTA, if driving other cars does not operate due to the insured vehicle being disposed of, then there is no RTA liability on the insurer of the vehicle which has been disposed of. You are giving very poor and inaccurate advice here.

dacouch

pastra wrote: »

So you agree that legal they would still have valid insurance. So why wouldn't they make that an exclusion in the cert wording.

So if the OP followed your advice had an accident, caused a permanent disability to a a third party and his Insurers recovered the costs of millions they paid out from him you would say that is ok as he had valid Insurance even though it bankrupted them

As Quentin rightly said there are many exclusions contained in a policy that affect third party liability, amongst them Terrorism, financial limits to property damage etc etc.

Are you going to accept that the advice you gace about not canceling the policy and using the driving other cars is incorrect in relation to some (Not all Insurers)? Would it help if we posted links to policies that include the exclusion?

cjgoodsell

If you no longer have the car you should immediately inform the insurer. If you are intending to replace the car some insurers will give you a grace period before it has to be cancelled. I know in this case the car is scrapped but if you had sold it and didnt cancel the insurance it could cause complications for the buyer should they have a claim on their insurance.

As for DOC extention other have said you wont be covered. If there is no car on the policy then 99% of insurers will not allow you to use the DOC extention.

Majority of insurers main exclusion of the DOC is "in the event of an emergency" My advice to you is consult your policy booklet and look under exclusions like ive seen dacouch and quentin advise you to do if in doubt speak to the insurance company.

lisyloo

If you no longer have the car you should immediately inform the insure

May I ask why this is?

I had my car scrapped in May.
I let my policy run for a few months because it would cost more to cancel plus I wanted the no claims.

There is no chance of complications arising if the car has been destroyed and you have the certificate of destruction.

cjgoodsell

Its more to protect their backs should the car not be destroyed then under the third party only cover they are liable to pay out against your policy, should no other insurance was put in place

BruceyBonus

You may want to check that the policy won't automatically renew at the end of the year. If it does, then you'll need to make sure you let them know you won't be renewing (sometime before the policy renews).

pastra

raskazz wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Just look inside a policy booklet and see how many clauses there are in the 'liability to others' section and how many general exclusions there are which do not appear on the certificate.

As for the RTA, if driving other cars does not operate due to the insured vehicle being disposed of, then there is no RTA liability on the insurer of the vehicle which has been disposed of. You are giving very poor and inaccurate advice here.

:T

Please read the law surrounding an insurance certificate,

A security shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless and until there is delivered by the person giving the security to the person to whom it is given a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “certificate of security”) in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the security is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed.

raskazz

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.