Help - Insurance claim rejected and whiplash

Quentin

arcon5 wrote: »

I'd be utterly disappointed if you tried to make the nhs liable!......I'd also think long and hard about the £1200 as a cancelled policy will cost you an awful lot more than that over not so much time.

If the OP has been let down by her employer's lack of duty to care, and is found liable for her finding herself in this situation, your utter disappointment will be of little concern!

And your "think long and hard" over a cancelled policy looks scare mongering - the OP states that the insurer is not considering cancelling the policy at all!

Rodney_Trotter

Quentin wrote: »

If the OP has been let down by her employer's lack of duty to care, and is found liable for her finding herself in this situation, your utter disappointment will be of little concern!

Surely it's down to the OP as insurance is a strict liability offence. It's not like they were driving a company vehicle.

Quentin

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

Surely it's down to the OP as insurance is a strict liability offence. It's not like they were driving a company vehicle.

Where has the OP been accused of committing an offence?

vaio

londonTiger wrote: »

.......regarding latter point.. what does it mean? Does it mean if employer pays business miles and the employees insurance was invalid then the employer is somehow complicit and therefore held equally liable?

I think employer will cover their backs, OP probably signed something in the job contract saying that they accept that they have valid insurance covering business use.

There is a general principle that employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees in course of their employment.

I'm pretty sure this includes vehicles, I'm pretty sure that it can't be got round by a term in an employment contract, I'm less sure whether the liability will be negated because the OP has RTA insurance which will pay the claim (abet with a requirement on the OP to repay the insurer personally). Similarly, if the employer pays they might then try and reclaim the costs from the OP

As above, do nothing without proper legal advice.

Rodney_Trotter

Quentin wrote: »

Where has the OP been accused of committing an offence?

It's the drivers responsibility to ensure any vehicle they drive has adequate cover is it not?

vaio

Yep, but that's on the criminal side, this thread is about the civil consequences

Rodney_Trotter

vaio wrote: »

Yep, but that's on the criminal side, the thread is about the civil consequences

I know but people are making out the employer is responsible as the OP never had business insurance but where does responsibility end? What is the employee fails to renew a policy?

arcon5

Quentin wrote: »

If the OP has been let down by her employer's lack of duty to care, and is found liable for her finding herself in this situation, your utter disappointment will be of little concern!

Yes, that's right. Her employers fault she failed to ensure she had adequate insurance! Not her fault - not at all huh.

How ridiculous!

Let's hope she doesn't get food poisoning, just in case her employer didn't tell her you have to cook chicken before eating it in your sandwiches at lunch.

And your "think long and hard" over a cancelled policy looks scare mongering - the OP states that the insurer is not considering cancelling the policy at all!

May change if she decides she wants to take further action to force the insurance company to pay out!

vaio

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

I know but people are making out the employer is responsible as the OP never had business insurance but where does responsibility end? What is the employee fails to renew a policy?

If the OP didn't have any insurance at all then I'm pretty sure the employer would be liable under the duty of care/vicarious liability thing.

Whether this is still the case given the OP does have RTA151/Article 75 cover I'm less sure, hence the suggestion for legal advice

spacey2012

zappahey wrote: »

The last time I read this statement on here, I checked with my insurer and they disagreed with your interpretation.

They confirmed that the bit in bold included driving on business for your employer.

Well as you have just seen in practice here, it does not.