Insurance, post-sale of vehicle

Buellguy

I'd love to know where they would stand with my bike insurance, cos I am the only person covered to ride, therefore no-one else would be covered even with my permission

InsideInsurance

Buellguy wrote: »

I'd love to know where they would stand with my bike insurance, cos I am the only person covered to ride, therefore no-one else would be covered even with my permission

Havent you read the above??

Your insurers are the RTA insurers of the vehicle so unless the vehicle is reported as stolen then they would have to cover any third party claim and then can recover that money from you (or the other person you allowed to drive it)

They will also most likely void your policy afterwards for allowing an unauthorised driver use the vehicle unless they believe a sob story

AdrianC

That's kinda the whole point of this thread.

The insurer would still be liable for third party claims, because they insure your bike and therefore have a legal obligation to pay out regardless.

The insurer would then be able, under the Ts & Cs you agreed to when you took the policy out, to reclaim their payout from you, because they did not agree to cover the driver/rider involved.

If there's a genuine theft involved, then it's vanishingly unlikely they would - not least because it'll be part of the theft claim, which they did agree to cover.

InsideInsurance

AdrianC wrote: »

If there's a genuine theft involved, then it's vanishingly unlikely they would - not least because it'll be part of the theft claim, which they did agree to cover.

If its a genuine theft then they certainly wouldnt pursue the policyholder unless there was some other issue with the policy/ claim.

Slightly oddly though, given the above posts about the reasoning, the insurers liability to the third party is actually dependent on if the driver of your stolen vehicle is actually identified or not

AdrianC

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Slightly oddly though, given the above posts about the reasoning, the insurers liability to the third party is actually dependent on if the driver of your stolen vehicle is actually identified or not

Go on....?

InsideInsurance

AdrianC wrote: »

Go on....?

Its been a while and so may have it the wrong way round but from memory if the driver isnt identified of the stolen vehicle there is no cover under the RTA vehicle insurance (and so MIB is the insurer of last resort) but if the thief/ driver is identified then the RTA insurer does have to deal with it.

AdrianC

Would seem right-way round, since the rider was definitely identified here...

Seems like the obvious solution would be for the insurance not to try at all hard to identify the driver, then it doesn't land on their pocket.

InsideInsurance

AdrianC wrote: »

Would seem right-way round, since the rider was definitely identified here...

Seems like the obvious solution would be for the insurance not to try at all hard to identify the driver, then it doesn't land on their pocket.

Here the vehicle wasnt stolen too, the person effectively gave permission for the other person to drive it by selling it to them. Its just a special case for stolen vehicles where the driver is unidentified

Assuming the third party has comp insurance then normally their insurance will be trying to identify the driver, along with the police and the RTA insurers of the stolen vehicle is hoping that they dont.

dacouch

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Its been a while and so may have it the wrong way round but from memory if the driver isnt identified of the stolen vehicle there is no cover under the RTA vehicle insurance (and so MIB is the insurer of last resort) but if the thief/ driver is identified then the RTA insurer does have to deal with it.

http://www.12kbw.co.uk/userfiles/Documents/Motor_insurance.pdf

Richard53

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The story isnt well written

I was trying to give the gist of the story for anyone who didn't want to click through to the original. Sorry if it didn't meet your exacting literary standards