Accident possibly not insured

foxy-stoat

Mercdriver wrote: »

Are you serious? If you are asked a specific question and you knowingly give an answer that you know not to be the truth and you gain a pecuniary advantage from it (payment of a claim is such a thing) then that is the very definition of fraud.

Were you in charge of the Trump version of truth at the inauguration?

Hoooollld on there part'ner.

Insurer asks : what is the purpose of your journey?
Answer : I was on my lunch break and drove to the shops, going to the garage for fuel.

I would check the dash cam footage first just to make sure the route is feasible or not submit it.

Mercdriver

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Hoooollld on there part'ner.

Insurer asks : what is the purpose of your journey?
Answer : I was on my lunch break and drove to the shops, going to the garage for fuel.

I would check the dash cam footage first just to make sure the route is feasible or not submit it.

Just because the chances of getting caught are not high does not make it any less fraudulent. It is still a fraudulent answer. Advising people to break the law on a public forum is somewhat unwise.

Arklight

Fgs what a load of sanctimonious judgement.

She was doing a favour for someone in her unpaid lunch break. She isn't Bernie Madoff.

a.turner

Mercdriver wrote: »

Are you serious? If you are asked a specific question and you knowingly give an answer that you know not to be the truth and you gain a pecuniary advantage from it (payment of a claim is such a thing) then that is the very definition of fraud.

Were you in charge of the Trump version of truth at the inauguration?

It's not though is it?

Ask yourself where's the gain or loss.

If the OPs friend wasn't insured and the third party liable would their insurance still pay out?

reeac

The dash cam shows the other driver glaring as she passed in front. That means that she wasn't looking ahead ....hence the subsequent swerve to avoid an oncoming car which then resulted in a collision with the OPs stationary car.

TooManyPoints

A word of (neutral) avice. Whatever the outcome of this incident (and it is most unlikely the police will become involved) your friend needs to beware. Should she be stopped by the police (or worse still be involved in an accident where the police are called or present) whilst undertaking such a "favour" she could well end up facing a No Insurance charge. It makes no difference that she was receiving no payment, or that she was only doing a favour or simply "helping out". She will be considered to be using her car for business and if she hasn't got business cover she will face a charge of driving without insurance. This is not judgemental or sanctimonious; it is sound, valid advice. I have seen quite a number of prosecutions for exactly the circumstances you describe. A No Insurance conviction (or a fixed penalty) carries six points and six points within the first two years of passing one's test means licence revocation.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

A word of (neutral) avice. Whatever the outcome of this incident (and it is most unlikely the police will become involved) your friend needs to beware. Should she be stopped by the police (or worse still be involved in an accident where the police are called or present) whilst undertaking such a "favour" she could well end up facing a No Insurance charge. It makes no difference that she was receiving no payment, or that she was only doing a favour or simply "helping out". She will be considered to be using her car for business and if she hasn't got business cover she will face a charge of driving without insurance. This is not judgemental or sanctimonious; it is sound, valid advice. I have seen quite a number of prosecutions for exactly the circumstances you describe. A No Insurance conviction (or a fixed penalty) carries six points and six points within the first two years of passing one's test means licence revocation.

We all know you haven't.

Mercdriver

a.turner wrote: »

It's not though is it?

Ask yourself where's the gain or loss.

If the OPs friend wasn't insured and the third party liable would their insurance still pay out?

A claim would be paid on that person's behalf. There's the gain.

a.turner

Mercdriver wrote: »

A claim would be paid on that person's behalf. There's the gain.

There's a gain either way.

If the OP's friend claims and says they had no insurance for that journey would it be fraud?

TooManyPoints

a.turner wrote: »

We all know you haven't.

Your friend can accept or ignore my advice, Vinny. It's up to her.