How does Expired MOT affect insurance claim?

riprover

this is very similar to my current position. Had an accident less than 20 hours after expiry of MOT. both his and mine write-offs, only bu virtue of fact each was worth about £500. Just realised my MOT error and am very concerned, particularly as insurance docs state without MOT it is invalid. This has been compounded by receiving letter from other partys solicitor claiming injuries, despite fact nobody was hurt (it was a shunt) and letter confirms nobody went to hospital. I have to send in MOT cert and unless they don't notice date it seems I will lose insurance on my car. Of more concern, does this mean I am liable for their damage and possible injury claims? If so, what sort of money are talking (whiplash and bruised wrists he clams). disaster...

CFC

Sounds to me like you are stuffed.

Check to see if you have legal cover on your house insurance as an add on and call them for advice in this situation. The other side may try to inflate the claims if they believe there is no insurance company to fight it.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

no MOT - no insurance. Says on all policies that they MUST have an MOT

Keith

mommyme wrote: »

no MOT - no insurance. Says on all policies that they MUST have an MOT

It actually usually says the vehicle must be roadworthy, go and check your policy documents for a mention of MOT.

Two things spring to mind...

A) If you pass an MOT in the morning, change your wheels back to the alloys you've got in the garden with knackered tread, is your MOT worth the paper it's printed on?

You've prebooked an MOT test after expiry of your old certificate, is your car not insured to drive to the MOT station?

riprover - Which insurance company are you with?

darich

I think most posters on here would agree that the MOT only proves roadworthiness on the day of the test.but that isn't the way the insurance company would necessarily look at it.
My policay states that I must keep my car in a roadworthy condition. And even taking the above statement into account the way to prove the car is roadworthy is to have a valid MOT.

So if one of the things I MUST do is keep my car roadworthy Ie have a valid MOT then I would assume that if my MOT lapses or expires then my insurance does too since I have not complied with the agreed terms of the policy.

raskazz

mommyme wrote: »

Says on all policies that they MUST have an MOT

Erm, no it doesn't. All refer to roadworthiness. A minority make explicit mention of the MOT.

In any case, an insurer cannot reject a claim on the grounds of lack of valid MOT unless (i) the car was unroadworthy (which is unrelated to the presence of a valid MOT) and (ii) the unroadworthiness actually caused or contributed to the claim.

raskazz

darich wrote: »

My policay states that I must keep my car in a roadworthy condition. And even taking the above statement into account the way to prove the car is roadworthy is to have a valid MOT.

A valid MOT proves nothing other than the vehicle was roadworthy at the time and date of the test. After that it proves nothing.

darich wrote: »

So if one of the things I MUST do is keep my car roadworthy Ie have a valid MOT then I would assume that if my MOT lapses or expires then my insurance does too since I have not complied with the agreed terms of the policy.

No. Under FSA rules an insurer cannot reject a claim on grounds of breach of warranty or condition unless the breach caused or contributed to the accident. Thus the only circumstances in which an insurer could reject a claim on grounds of breach of a roadworthiness condition are if the insured vehicle was unroadworthy and the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the claim. As an MOT proves nothing other than the vehicle was roadworthy at the time and date of the test, any condition which purports to exclude claims on grounds of lack of valid MOT is unenforceable.

darich

Keith wrote: »

It actually usually says the vehicle must be roadworthy, go and check your policy documents for a mention of MOT.

Two things spring to mind...

A) If you pass an MOT in the morning, change your wheels back to the alloys you've got in the garden with knackered tread, is your MOT worth the paper it's printed on?

In your example the car is illegal even with the MOT since the test is only testing the car at that specific time. Try explaining the above if the police pull you in and see where you end up. If your car passed by the skin of its teeth on tyre tread would you happily drive for a year until the next MOT on slick tyres? Of course you wouldn't - so your example is a bit silly.

Keith wrote: »

You've prebooked an MOT test after expiry of your old certificate, is your car not insured to drive to the MOT station?

I would imagine your car is not insured since the car has not been maintained in a roadworthy condition and you've therefore breached your terms of the insurance contract. Given that you would not be able to prove its roadworthniess then you'd be stuffed as far as making a claim is concerned.

You're right in that the insurance does not specifically state the car must be MOT'd but it does state the car must be roadworthy. Ask any police or insurance company how to prove your car is roadworthy and they'll state it must have a valid MOT. So without an MOT no driver can prove the roadworthiness of their car even though the test only examines the car on the day of the test and without that proof your insurance company would probably decline to pay out, or pay a vastly reduced amount.

raskazz

darich wrote: »

You're right in that the insurance does not specifically state the car must be MOT'd but it does state the car must be roadworthy. Ask any police or insurance company how to prove your car is roadworthy and they'll state it must have a valid MOT. So without an MOT no driver can prove the roadworthiness of their car even though the test only examines the car on the day of the test and without that proof your insurance company would probably decline to pay out, or pay a vastly reduced amount.

Er, I work for an insurance company and if someone suggested to me that a valid MOT 'proves' that a car is roadworthy I'd tell them that they were talking nonsense!

darich

raskazz wrote: »

No. Under FSA rules an insurer cannot reject a claim on grounds of breach of warranty or condition unless the breach caused or contributed to the accident. Thus the only circumstances in which an insurer could reject a claim on grounds of breach of a roadworthiness condition are if the insured vehicle was unroadworthy and the unroadworthiness caused or contributed to the claim. As an MOT proves nothing other than the vehicle was roadworthy at the time and date of the test, any condition which purports to exclude claims on grounds of lack of valid MOT is unenforceable.

So how come a company could refuse to pay out on the local chavmobile with big exhaust and fancy spoilers etc if the accident wasn't causd by either modification?