Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Yes, they would be obliged to honour the third party's legitimate claim.

This.

If the driver was in breach of their policy, then the insurer could simply hand the bill straight over to them... but they're definitely on the hook.


No reason for the policy to be void, even if this was a blackout - so long as they didn't lie about a previous history.

tommyjj

AdrianC wrote: »

No reason for the policy to be void, even if this was a blackout - so long as they didn't lie about a previous history.

Right, but if she follows her story to its conclusion and claims some kind of medical condition that wasn't disclosed, her insurers can avoid paying anything.

- although this would put her in quite a predicament, which would include losing her license until the condition has been established, a possible fraud conviction for not disclosing on her insurance, and a conviction plus 6 point for driving without insurance.

AdrianC

tommyjj wrote: »

Right, but if she follows her story to its conclusion and claims some kind of medical condition that wasn't disclosed, her insurers can avoid paying anything.

Not if she says this is the first incidence of blacking out.

tommyjj

AdrianC wrote: »

Not if she says this is the first incidence of blacking out.

If it is, then her insurance would still be valid.

Car_54

tommyjj wrote: »

Right, but if she follows her story to its conclusion and claims some kind of medical condition that wasn't disclosed, her insurers can avoid paying anything.

- although this would put her in quite a predicament, which would include losing her license until the condition has been established, a possible fraud conviction for not disclosing on her insurance, and a conviction plus 6 point for driving without insurance.

They can’t avoid paying 3rd party claims like the OP’s, but they can recover their costs from their policyholder if she really hadn’t disclosed something.

She wasn’t driving without insurance: they can’t void the policy retrospectively.

tommyjj

Car_54 wrote: »

She wasn’t driving without insurance: they can’t void the policy retrospectively.

If I tell my insurance company I have no health conditions, a clean license and 10 years no claims, and it turns out (following an accident) that I've had narcolepsy since birth, 10 points for reckless driving and several recent claims... I would expect that insurance company to refuse to pay a claim.

Isn't that the same thing as driving without insurance?

Car_54

tommyjj wrote: »

If I tell my insurance company I have no health conditions, a clean license and 10 years no claims, and it turns out (following an accident) that I've had narcolepsy since birth, 10 points for reckless driving and several recent claims... I would expect that insurance company to refuse to pay a claim.

Isn't that the same thing as driving without insurance?

No, they can’t refuse 3rd party claims (although they could recover the costs from you).

Since it’s only TP cover that’s required by law, you would not have been driving without insurance.

tommyjj

Car_54 wrote: »

No, they can’t refuse 3rd party claims (although they could recover the costs from you).

That's what I had assumed too, but it seems as though that's exactly what the woman's insurers are trying to do.

waamo

I think one of the problems here is we are getting third hand information which is a mixture of guesswork and assumptions.

Remember the story of "send three and four pence we are going to a dance"?

tommyjj

waamo wrote: »

I think one of the problems here is we are getting third hand information which is a mixture of guesswork and assumptions.

Technically it's 2nd hand information, but I get your point.