Please help! Insurance nightmare.

my_names_dave

vaio wrote: »

By my reading of RTA 1988 the insurer is liable to pay under s151 (2)(b), and the right of recovery under s151 (8) is against the driver or policy holder but (8)(b) limits the liability of the policy holder unless they "caused or permitted the use"

Would the argument not be that by insuring this vehicle the OP has caused it's use, as it will show up on the MID and ANPR as being legitimately insured?

vaio

SimonSays wrote: »

Its not rubbish. If you read what I said fully before jumping on it You'll see I acknowledge temporary insurance, But a full policy requires an insurable interest...

Insurable interest doesn't need to be financial, in the case of cars if you have a benefit which would be affected by damage to the vehicle then that counts as an interest which you can protect by insurance.

As the OP was granted the benefit of being able to use her friend's car and that benefit would be affected/lost if the car was damaged then she can insure against it.

I can't see any logical reason why the rules about insurable interest would be different for a long term vs short term policy.

Don't forget the whole reason the "insurable interest" thing came about. It was to prevent the moral ill of speculators "gambling" by insuring a person or ship in which they had no interest with the attendant temptation to "engineer" a loss thus winning their "bet".

Now the entire city of london/financial services "industry" seems to spend most of their time speculating for the sake of speculating the need for insurable interest is questionable and I think the Law Commission are looking at the whole area so expect some changes in the next decade or so

vaio

my_names_dave wrote: »

Would the argument not be that by insuring this vehicle the OP has caused it's use, as it will show up on the MID and ANPR as being legitimately insured?

It's an argument but not one I'd agree with. If it was correct then any insurance on any car would fall into the same category and insurers would be reclaiming s151 payouts from the owners of stolen cars involved in accidents.

I'd say "causing or permitting" needs to be more of a deliberate action than just insuring a vehicle as described the the OP.

my_names_dave

vaio wrote: »

It's an argument but not one I'd agree with. If it was correct then any insurance on any car would fall into the same category and insurers would be reclaiming s151 payouts from the owners of stolen cars involved in accidents.

I'd say "causing or permitting" needs to be more of a deliberate action than just insuring a vehicle as described the the OP.

I would say that 'caused' would not apply to theft related accidents, as that would imply that by merely owning a vehicle you are causing, or the cause of such things.

I think, as stated quite a few pages ago, that the OP needs to seek the advice of a lawyer versed in motor insurance / claims. They will know the case law and current practises inside out, and I suspect would be worth every penny in this case.

vaio

my_names_dave wrote: »

........I think, as stated quite a few pages ago, that the OP needs to seek the advice of a lawyer versed in motor insurance / claims. They will know the case law and current practises inside out, and I suspect would be worth every penny in this case.

yep, I agree and I'd also give the FOS a call

magpiecottage

vaio wrote: »

yep, I agree and I'd also give the FOS a call

I doubt a call to FOS would really help. As DunstonH has noted frequently, the telephone helpline tends to say what you want to hear.

A complaint to Admiral in the first instance would seem a good move, though.

If the outcome is unsatisfactory the former policyholder can then escalate it to FOS.

vaio

my thinking about getting on to the FOS ASAP is that if it goes officially legal then there is the danger that FOS will decline jurisdiction

really the OP needs specialist legal advice but that isn't going to be cheap

SimonSays

I guess this thread was troll tastic

busicat

[FONT=&quot]...is if Admiral have proof (don't know how, unless came out in police investigation) of a naughty little deal when still friends. Eg: the crazy driver with the car was uninsurable (or at too high a cost) and made a deal with Rebekah that she'd allow R. use of her car if R agreed to get herself a policy, which would allow crazy friend to keep driving under the radar of the police, as her registration number would show up as being for an insured vehicle...until that is the inevitable struck(!)

In that imaginary scenario (seems less plausible to me than the story presented by R.+ her Mum), Admiral could stretch the meaning of "caused or permitted the use of the vehicle which gave rise to the liability" on the basis of friend knowing it was a risk to drive uninsured, but felt able to get away with it, thinking unlikely to be spotted if car was on record as insured.

Hmm, not convinced.

Of course there's generally 2 sides to the story, and we haven't got Admirals' side, but I'm suspecting there's been the odd slip up in process which has ended up with them facing this exposure inadvertently and they appear to be being a little over zealous on attempting to protect shareholder interests, assuming the usual process for reclaim applies, whereas in this unusual circumstance it doesn't.

Which is unfortunate, as it opens them up to the following sort of parody... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

busicat

[FONT=&quot]The way this works is you get the policyholder to pay both the premium and the claim, whether that’s treating the customer fairly or not. This is how to reinstate the fortunes of the industry. And this is how one insurer is trying to make it work in this story….[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Liability for a car accident rests with the policyholder’s “friend” who is also the non-insured driver and owner of the car. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]One way or another, (possibly a mistake in their new business process?), Admiral eagerly provided cover to the policyholder allowing her also to drive the car (of course with the friend’s permission), covering her for…I’m wondering what now?! The policy meant she was driving legally, having insurance in place to protect Third Parties, and, it appears, damage to the car etc..[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now, through an accident nothing to do with the policyholder, the benefit of the policy turns out to be that she gets asked to pay for the accident caused by the friend and which has resulted in Admiral paying out as the sole insurer of the car, thanks to the RTA. (i.e. The bit that says in s.151(2)(b) if you’ve insured a car and there’s a third party liability for the driver of the car, you have to pay out as the insurer, even though the driver wasn’t covered by you.)[/FONT]

So that does turn out a bit tough on Admiral. But never, mind, they think they’ve got the policy wording and the RTA on their side to make their customer pay for it all. After all, if it wasn’t for her choosing them as her insurer, they wouldn’t have been hit with that other idiot’s liability. So serves her right, let’s go for her, eh?

So, if we’re all agreed that’s the right thing to do (???) (best not think too hard about “Treating Customer’s Fairly” might apply or how anyone on this forum might feel like passing this one over to the FCA’s whistle-blowing team), let’s see how the law and small print lets Admiral treat a 22 year old as their reinsurer to the tune of £20k….

First of all the policy:
[FONT=&quot]Payments made under compulsory Insurance regulations and right of recovery[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the Law in any country in which your policy operates requires us to settle a claim on your behalf, which, if this Law had not existed, we would not be obliged to pay, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]we shall be entitled to recover such payments either from you or the driver.[/FONT]

There you go…we can’t be bothered to go after the driver, so we’ll go for you as we were forced to pay a claim just because of the law, not because the policy covered it, and we had to settle the claim on your behalf. Oh, hang on, it wasn’t on your behalf was it. You didn’t cause the accident and didn’t own the car so in no way was this your liability, so we weren’t settling the claim on your behalf. Who’d have thought our lawyers would have been so generous as to leave in something that protects the policyholder. Must be an oversight. (Note to self: get idiot lawyers to zap “on your behalf”. Unless they might report me to Compliance re TCF. Hmm, maybe not.) Ah, well never mind, there’s still the statute to fall back on:

Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 151 (8) should do it….
[FONT=&quot]Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is not insured by a policy or whose liability is not covered by a security, he is entitled to recover the amount from that person[/FONT] (no point bothering there, we think, let’s let our policyholder try her best with that one, heh, heh) [FONT=&quot]or from any person who—[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a) is insured by the policy, or whose liability is covered by the security, by the terms of which the liability would be covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons,[/FONT]
Ha, gotcha baby, that’s you! Thank goodness no-one on the forum managed to prove the policy was void, or the game would be up.
Oh, hang on though, what’s this last bit? ….
[FONT=&quot]…. and (b) caused or permitted the use of the vehicle which gave rise to the liability.[/FONT]

Oh, no, “[FONT=&quot]caused or permitted” [/FONT]how am I going to make that one stack up? Maybe I can make it look like mad driver rang up polholder and said "I’m thinking of going out in my car" and PH said "yeah, OK". Or that PH texted mad driver and said “I need you to come and pick me up in your car”

Oh, forget it, another money spinning idea in the bin!