Motorcycle insurance refusing cover

AndyMc.....

Aretnap wrote: »

You're right that he cannot claim against himself - so if he was the at fault rider and had damaged his own property (eg by riding into his other bike) he wouldn't be able to claim against himself as a third party.

However if I read it correctly he isn't the at fault party - his mate is. So he wouldn't be suing himself. He'd be suing (in theory) his mate, and his mate would ask his insurer to cover his liabilities. As it happens the OP's mate was riding as a named rider on the OP's insurance policy, but as far as I can see that's neither here nor there - the insurer still has to cover the mate's liabilities. The Road Traffic Act says you must have a policy which covers all of your liabilities to other people. It doesn't say "other people, except people who happen to be on the same insurance policy as you*, so if the insurer is right what law allows the mate to ride with a policy which doesn't cover his liabilities to the OP?

But our road traffic act doesn’t apply in Europe.

Aretnap

AndyMc..... wrote: »

But our road traffic act doesn’t apply in Europe.

No, but if the insurer's interpretation of its terms was correct the op's mate would have been riding illegally as soon as they got back to Blighty, which seems unlikely. Plis a UK issued policy must have terms which comply with the RTA, and the requirements for third party insurance in the rest of the EU are much the same as ours - they're covered by EU directives.

mvpetev

That is a good point - well the few points above.

And yes there is always the option to press charges against the second rider even if they are on my policy but come on no one does that - not to a friend anyhow.

It is true however I do see how it will have the point of we dont cover third party against your self as this will give quite a bit of lean way for insurance fraud essentially but it would appear even if it was another person that is insured on the same vehicle under the same policy essentially counts as you. Another example will be after you do a claim your premium goes up not the other person`s one.

P.S.

Ok after reviewing the policy once again here is what we have:

We will insure You in respect of all legally liable sums, with Our written consent, in respect of death
or bodily injury to any Third Party, or any amount not exceeding £20,000,000 in respect of damage to

Third Party property, as a result of an incident caused by:
(a) Your Motorcycle.
(b) Any trailer while it is being towed by Your Motorcycle

On the same basis that We insure You under this section, We will also insure the following persons:
!!!8226; any person You give permission to ride Your Motorcycle provided that Your Certificate of Motor
Insurance allows that person to Ride;

The cover under this section will not apply:
3. To loss of or damage to property belonging to or in the care of anyone We insure who claims
under this section, and to property being conveyed by Your Motorcycle.
4. In respect of damage to any Motorcycle in connection with which Indemnity is provided by this
section.

Interesting fact is the wording in the beginning as it says they will cover any damage caused by "My motorcycle" not a specified rider.

And then the exception is to any person they insure -does that mean if i cause damage to property of a total stranger who happens to have insurance with them they will not cover it ?

Quentin

mvpetev wrote: »

…..Another example will be after you do a claim your premium goes up not the other person`s one

No.


If the "other person" was the driver involved in a claim/incident and has their own policy on another vehicle then they must inform their own insurer about the claim (irrespective of fault), and can expect a premium loading too.

mvpetev

Quentin wrote: »

No.


If the "other person" was the driver involved in a claim/incident and has their own policy on another vehicle then they must inform their own insurer about the claim (irrespective of fault), and can expect a premium loading too.

They dont tho - they only have this one as a second rider

mvpetev

Aretnap wrote: »

Added - the RTA does include some exceptions which mean the policy doesn't have to cover any liabilities the mate has for the bike that he was riding, or property which was in his posession or under his control... but none of those apply to the OP's other bike, which the OP was riding at the time.

Im not sure I understand that correctly - so the RTA just red it says yes indeed "must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability" but then it also says as you stated the exception is "to cover any liability of a person in respect of damage to property in his custody or under his control" - isnt that exactly what my other bike is ?

Quentin

mvpetev wrote: »

They dont tho - they only have this one as a second rider

So then no question of them paying a higher premium due to their claim!


You have added a new question to your post by way of your recent edit:


If your insurer covers both vehicles involved in an incident they will of course cover them both. Your issue is entirely different as you own both vehicles!

mvpetev

Quentin wrote: »

If your insurer covers both vehicles involved in an incident they will of course cover them both. Your issue is entirely different as you own both vehicles!

True sorry disregard the second question as it is not applicable

Car_54

mvpetev wrote: »

Im not sure I understand that correctly - so the RTA just red it says yes indeed "must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability" but then it also says as you stated the exception is "to cover any liability of a person in respect of damage to property in his custody or under his control" - isnt that exactly what my other bike is ?

The relevant section (143) of the Act covers third-party risks. You are not a third party. (The insurer and yourself are the first and second parties to the contract.)

So the damage to your bike is not covered by the TP element of the policy.

Aretnap

mvpetev wrote: »

Im not sure I understand that correctly - so the RTA just red it says yes indeed "must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability" but then it also says as you stated the exception is "to cover any liability of a person in respect of damage to property in his custody or under his control" - isnt that exactly what my other bike is ?

The bike your mate was riding is clearly property in his obsession or under his control - so if your mate rides it like a muppet and damages it he may well be liable to you for the damage but the RTA does not require that liability to be covered.

OTOH the bike you were riding was clearly not in your mate's possession or under his control - so I'm struggling to see how the insurer can exclude his liability for it.

To check I understand correctly;

You own two bikes, bike A and bike B.

Your mate is a named driver on the policy for bike A.

While riding bike A he rode carelessly and crashed into Bike B (which you happened to be riding) damaging both bikes.

You want Bike A's insurer to cover the repairs to both bikes - bike A under the own damage section and bike B under the liability section. They're offering to cover the repairs to bike A, but not bike B.

Correct me if I've misunderstood any of this, as if I have my argument probably falls down.