help i dont know what to do. they want £5000.

shinobi247

ok if i breached contract, then surely my insurance company should have cancelled my insurance after i informed them i sold the ehicle 3 months ago, why would they then charge or refund me for the new vehicle, If i breached contract then my insurance should have being/cancelled withdrawn. I just assumed that if i am not the legal owner of the vehicle then my insurance is invalid , when i sold the car it had no m.o.t that would also make it an insured vehicle? no?

Quentin

shinobi247 wrote: »

If i breached contract then my insurance should have being/cancelled withdrawn. ......when i sold the car it had no m.o.t that would also make it an insured vehicle? no?

1) You didn't "breach" your contract enough to warrant them cancelling it!

2) No MOT normally doesn't affect your cover.

PennyPinchingMiser

If the insurance company were handling a claim against the OP's insurance, shirley they would have contacted him? If only to find out if he admitted liablility?

Astaroth

I have to say that I predominately agree with Anihilator on this one. Most insurance contracts do have a clause to recover losses from the policyholder incured by the policyholder failing to do things like informing them they have sold the car and it should be taken off cover.

Certainly in my claims handling days if we had acted as RTA insurer because the policyholder had sold the car and not told us or had allowed an uninsured friend to borrow the car etc then our first attempt would be to recover the money from the driver at the time of the incident but if that failed (or was deemed too low a chance of success to make it sensible to pursue) then we would pursue the policyholder (including through the courts) instead. Certainly remoteness was never raised as an issue in any of the cases I can remember. It was pursued under contract law rather than the law of tortes

huckster

Astaroth

Very similar, I have not dealt with motor claims on a regular basis for over 20 years, but have read that remoteness is now being used. This is that although the contract may give rise to the Insurers being able to recover their outlay, the argument could be made that the policyholder could not have forseen being liable for something they had no control over.

It cannot simply be a contract issue. We paid out £5k because you forgot to cancel, so you now owe us £5k. They paid out because they had still been receiving the premium to accept the RTA risk. They should therefore be pursuing the driver.

If you believe that the contract of Insurance overides any legal precedent which limits the liability of someone, please do make the argument, citing the relevant cases. And also citing the particular part of the policy wording which gives the contractual rights to make such a recovery from their policyholder in these exact circumstances.

Quentin

huckster wrote: »

If you believe that the contract of Insurance overides any legal precedent which limits the liability of someone, please do make the argument, citing the relevant cases. And also citing the particular part of the policy wording which gives the contractual rights to make such a recovery from their policyholder in these exact circumstances.

You just want the quickie reply then!

Or why not accept sometimes you make mistakes?

huckster

Quentin wrote: »

You just want the quickie reply then!

Or why not accept sometimes you make mistakes?

And your point is?? I can see this from both points of view but when dealing with legal matters, I think it is best for the courts to decide on this.

I believe that the OP has a case, but needs to obtain legal advice. Just in case the Insurers chance their arm in going to court and obtain a decision by default because the OP did not defend.