Was in a Car crash Accident today involving 4 cars?

dacouch

facade wrote: »

In The Olden Days SDP covered commuting to work, as commuting was part of Domestic (domestic is earning money and spending it going to Tescos, taking kids to school etc. Or is it Social, as Unemployment Benefit used to be Social Security?).

Then "Commuting" became separate,
Then it became Commuting to a regular place of employment so you need Business cover if you are likely to go on a course or something.

Just ways to wheedle out of paying claims if you ask me, most people need to go to work, and would go in their car, yet if you work part -time, your policy is dearer, as you have more time to drive around in the day.

Commuting has never been officially classed as part of SD&P or more specifically Domestic Use.

There were a very small amount of Insurers even back in the day who offered a discount for SD&P Use only.

Back in the day it was all done manually with the client completing the proposal form by hand and to set the Insurance up we would write a manual covernote. The proposal form & covernote would have "To & From a Permanent Place of Work" as the description for standard commuting which was generally shortened to "TFPPB" on the covernote (Generally after the word "commuting" & the proposal form if the proposal form required the customer to describe their work. It was an accepted term within the industry to use the shortened version of (commuting) TFPPB when dealing with others in the industry and even traffic police who rang to check if a customer was covered.

I'll accept that in my many years of Insurance that at the start the vast majority of Insurers quoted with SD&P & commuting (TFPPB) as their minimum use with no discount for SD&P only. But certainly in my time Insurers did not just quote for SD&P and cover commuting use under SD&P only.

If you had a claim under the small amount of Insurers who offered a discount for SD&P only such as Link, they certainly would not have paid a claim for commuting. The same would apply under the Insurers back then who would only cover certain vehicles for SD&P only eg a van under a private car policy or one of the schemes for a converted motorhome.

I've written literally thousands of covernotes in my time and the vast vast amount of those have contained the addition of "+ commuting" and / or "TFPPB" depending on the specific requirements of the Insurer.

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

As already stated they are legally obliged to deal with third parties unless there was no negligence which isn't the case. If they then pursue the policy holder or driver for breaching the terms that's not ops problem.
This isn't an uninsuredvehicle

I'm sorry but you're wrong.

An Insurer is not liable under 151 if the policy does not provide cover for the use of the vehicle at the time of use by the uninsured driver eg using it to commute to work on a SDP only policy.

The above could also apply in certain circumstance if the car was stolen and was being used in a "prolonged criminal activity" by the thief then it's feasible for the Insurer to avoid being a section 151 Insurer.

I'll happily provide proof if you require

facade

dacouch wrote: »

Commuting has never been officially classed as part of SD&P or more specifically Domestic Use.

There were a very small amount of Insurers even back in the day who offered a discount for SD&P Use only.

I'll take your word for it, I know that I was never specifically asked about commuting in The Olden Days, I guess it was a given that you would use your only car to get to work

What is Social use? (Is it visiting friends & family?)
What is "Domestic" use? logically you would think it was anything to do with running a household, ie shopping, kids to school, visits to doctors, going to work.

I assume "Pleasure" is driving around aimlessly, or some sort of hang-over from The Olden Days when people used to go for a Sunday afternoon drive.

OnanTheBarbarian

An insurer is only going to dodge dealing with a third party claim if the vehicle had been sold and there is a transfer of insurable interest or if the subject vehicle had been stolen and the driver not identified.

If the driver is identified then in 99% of cases they have to take the pain of the claim and maybe look at recovering the expense from their policyholder.

The vehicle being used for business use when only down for SD&P+ commuting would not give them any get out of jail card for a third party claim.

dacouch

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

An insurer is only going to dodge dealing with a third party claim if the vehicle had been sold and there is a transfer of insurable interest or if the subject vehicle had been stolen and the driver not identified.

If the driver is identified then in 99% of cases they have to take the pain of the claim and maybe look at recovering the expense from their policyholder.

The vehicle being used for business use when only down for SD&P+ commuting would not give them any get out of jail card for a third party claim.

Not according to Stephen Worthington QC http://www.12kbw.co.uk/userfiles/Documents/Motor_insurance.pdf

Tilt

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Looks like you missed it.

Dosn't confirm that the police were aware who the TP driver was. We can only assume the OP told them. Obviously the owner seemed keen to give the impression that she was driving which suggests that the actual driver was not fully legal.

Captaincodpiece

Tilt wrote: »

Dosn't confirm that the police were aware who the TP driver was. We can only assume the OP told them. Obviously the owner seemed keen to give the impression that she was driving which suggests that the actual driver was not fully legal.

Keep digging.

Tilt

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Keep digging.

Digging what? So which bit have I got wrong then? You don't have to be Inspector Morse to see what's happened here.

Captaincodpiece

Tilt wrote: »

Digging what? So which bit have I got wrong then? You don't have to be Inspector Morse to see what's happened here.

Yesterday you were banging on about the need to report a collision to the police when they attended the incident.

Tilt

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Yesterday you were banging on about the need to report a collision to the police when they attended the incident.

Which according to the RTA, is what needs to be done if the drivers havn't exchanged details, is it not? As I read it, both driver and owner had left the scene by the time the police arrived. So hopefully the OP informed the police that he/she didn't have the actual driver's details.

Follow me now?