Insurance, post-sale of vehicle

OnanTheBarbarian

Yeah I had spotted that on my research thanks.

dacouch

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Yeah I had spotted that on my research thanks.

So you would have seen the QC feels the recent relatively related case means that a motor policy does not automatically cease upon sale of the vehicle unless the policy specifically states it will.

Perhaps the Insurer you were up against had this in their policy or were able to rely on one of the other exemptions he lists

OnanTheBarbarian

The main case law seems to deal with issues relating to incidents related to DOC cover. There seems to be quite a few distinguishing features in many of the cases when you read the full judgments.

thenudeone

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Well I think we will agree to disagree on this.

Have you read the contents of my last post before you edited yours?

No, I didn't edit my post after reading, and in the light of, your post.

I edited it after doing some more research on the nature of "Article 75", which is in effect, only part of the rules drawn up between insurers on how their trade body operates. The Articles of Association of a trade body, even one with some statutory basis, can't change the law.

The RTA doesn't mention or even suggest that s151 liability can be ended by a sale.

Even the MIB's own newsletter does not suggest that the sale of a vehicle without notifying the insurer (which is therefore a policy breach) removes RTA liability.

I have no doubt some that insurers will try to make assertions that they aren't liable, especially if a significant sum were involved.

But - ultimately, Parliament went to some lengths to make sure that once an insurance policy was in place and until it was formally cancelled, it covered just about every possible eventuality and that insurers could not exclude their liabilities [The only excluded case is that of an unidentified driver], and the RTA has to be viewed as the definitive statement of when insurers are liable.