Insurance settle 50/50 but im not at fault!

DUTR

iammumtoone wrote: »

But they don't need a MOT.

Is it really the case that you can drive round illegally yet still hold valid insurance? I never knew that and don't think its right.

They still need to be in a roadworthy condition.

Marktheshark

You both failed to stop in time .
Its 50/50

Retrogamer

iammumtoone wrote: »

I am not an expert on insurance but if the third party didn't have a valid MOT doesn't that mean they are also uninsured?

No, the insurance is still valid as long as the vehicle is roadworthy. If it's not roadworthy then the insurance may be invalidated for fully comp claims only if the vehicle's defect contributed to the accident.

iammumtoone wrote: »

Therefore in a collision with an uninsured driver wouldn't you be liable for 100% of your claim anyway as you have no one to claim against?

No. Even if the other driver had a dangerous vehicle and a defect caused the accident their insurance company will stay pay out for any third party liability claims.

iammumtoone wrote: »

on the other side surely an uninsured driver would not be able to claim against your insurance as they were not legally allowed on the road in the first place.

If you crash into someone and it's your fault it doesn't matter if they have insurance or not. Them not having insurance doesn't mean you weren't at fault by being negligent.

guy.laister

That's the thing. Unfortunately YouTube won't let you do it. But play it frame by frame I stopped in time before impact.

The other bloke by his own admission was still accelerating.

Quentin

iammumtoone wrote: »

I am not an expert on insurance but if the third party didn't have a valid MOT doesn't that mean they are also uninsured?

Therefore in a collision with an uninsured driver wouldn't you be liable for 100% of your claim anyway as you have no one to claim against?

on the other side surely an uninsured driver would not be able to claim against your insurance as they were not legally allowed on the road in the first place.

All nonsense.

You start off by telling us you are not an insurance expert, then proceed to further the urban myth that no mot means insurance is invalid.

That is incorrect so making the rest of your "surelys" into a totally nonsensical post which should be ignored

iammumtoone

Quentin wrote: »

All nonsense.

You start off by telling us you are not an insurance expert, then proceed to further the urban myth that no mot means insurance is invalid.

That is incorrect so making the rest of your "surelys" into a totally nonsensical post which should be ignored

Correct I am not an expert hence why I did not state facts, I was asking questions (the present of question marks after my sentences indicates this) to broaden my own knowledge more than anything else, which Retrogamer kindly answered in an non judgement way.

iammumtoone

OP how high up have you spoken to at the insurance company?

I am in the middle of a liability dispute, at first my insurance company were going to make me 100% liable, I would have settled for 50/50 but wasn't going to take 100%. I keep refusing and asking to speak to a manger, in the end they reviewed my case and found something the third party had admitted that the original reviewer missed! My case got referred to solicitors who have served court papers, I am waiting to see if it will get to court.

maddogb

Quentin wrote: »

All nonsense.

You start off by telling us you are not an insurance expert, then proceed to further the urban myth that no mot means insurance is invalid.

That is incorrect so making the rest of your "surelys" into a totally nonsensical post which should be ignored

perhaps the urban myth would die if dishonest insurers stopped implying it in their policies..


from the considerable reading I have done statements implying such are in nearly all policies and always fail to mention they can only do this in comprehensive cover and not 3rd party liability.

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

perhaps the urban myth would die if dishonest insurers stopped implying it in their policies..


from the considerable reading I have done statements implying such are in nearly all policies and always fail to mention they can only do this in comprehensive cover and not 3rd party liability.

They cannot do it at all unless the policy contains a clause requiring the car to be "Roadworthy" and the car not being "Roadworthy" at the time to the claim most likely caused or significantly contributed to the claim.

It's upto the Insurer to provide the evidence.

The MOT "Exclusion" tends to be contained in the cheap and cheerful Insurers policies rather than the decent Insurers Policies.

It's a myth that is perpetuated by articles written for the benefit of SEO by websites such as this one which people believe to be true as it's from an "Official" source.

http://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/insurance-car-tax-mots-and-the-law

Quentin

maddogb wrote: »

from the considerable reading I have done statements implying such are in nearly all policies and always fail to mention they can only do this in comprehensive cover and not 3rd party liability.

"They" cannot do it at all! No matter what cover you have your insurance is not invalidated if you have no MOT. (That is all the reading you need on this topic! Tell your friends!)