why pay every year

starrystarry

mikey72 wrote: »

No one said he wasn't.
Outdated maybe, and time for change though.

:rotfl: A new campaign for you. Good luck with that. The principles of contract law have been in place for a long time, for a reason.

mikey72

starrystarry wrote: »

:rotfl: A new campaign for you. Good luck with that. The principles of contract law have been in place for a long time, for a reason.

So was witch burning and slavery.
Things change.

vaio

starrystarry wrote: »

You need to go and read up on basic contract law, raskazz is spot on.

Thanks for the suggestion, don't suppose you have any appropriate references to support your view?

Spiderham

mikey72 wrote: »

No one said he wasn't.
Outdated maybe, and time for change though.

Have to say I am tempted to agree with mikey here.

I think part of the reason it is persisted with is that people writing off cars are (unsurprisingly) viewed as poor risks.

I'm not convinced that the contract has been fulfilled. With a marine contract after total loss , everything insured for has been replaced and reimbursed for. With a motor contract, an integral part of the insurance (and in fact the only mart of Third Party Only and the compulsory part mandated by the Road Traffic Act) is Third Party Liability for your driving, not your car. If you write off a car, that doesn't mean you've done all your driving for the year, does it?

raskazz

Spiderham wrote: »

With a motor contract, an integral part of the insurance (and in fact the only mart of Third Party Only and the compulsory part mandated by the Road Traffic Act) is Third Party Liability for your driving, not your car. If you write off a car, that doesn't mean you've done all your driving for the year, does it?

This is not correct. In terms of the liability element of a motor insurance policy, what is covered is liability arising out of the use of the vehicle stated. If the vehicle stated ceases to be then there is no longer any subject-matter of insurance.

vaio

Still no appropriate modern references

This is one I'd like to see go to the FOS, losing the bulk of the premium (ie the annual third party liability) because of a total loss claim seems inherently unfair to me particularly as most car insurance policies contain an explicit term allowing replacement of the insured vehicle not to mention the DOC cover which would also be lost

starrystarry

vaio wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestion, don't suppose you have any appropriate references to support your view?

Try the CII's current syllabus on Insurance Law.

Where there is a total loss the contract is discharged by performance because the subject matter that supports the insurable interest no longer exists (or the insured no longer has any rights to it).

Insurers can choose to modify this in the terms of the policy, but the default position is as per above.

mikey72

Also the criteria for write off has changed.
It used to be a true write off, as Raskazz states ,"the vehicle stated ceases to be"
Now it may be due to minor panel damage, which in some cases is purely cosmetic, and may not even need repairing to continue to be roadworthy.
So it could be written off, but still exiists as a vehicle that could be used.
Not cancelling the insurance would be a better option then.

starrystarry

mikey72 wrote: »

Also the criteria for write off has changed.
It used to be a true write off, as Raskazz states ,"the vehicle stated ceases to be"
Now it may be due to minor panel damage, which in some cases is purely cosmetic, and may not even need repairing to continue to be roadworthy.
So it could be written off, but still exiists as a vehicle that could be used.
Not cancelling the insurance would be a better option then.

But the insured would no longer have any interest in the vehicle, as all rights pass to the insurer. They might choose to sell it back to the policyholder but that's a separate matter. And they may no longer be willing to insure that vehicle.

mikey72

Indeed, I think we are saying the same thing here, as the crteria for writing it off has changed, it may still be a perfectly servicable vehicle, unlike the original total loss that was indeed unsalvagable.