Technically Uninsured Accident

Exodi

Hello fellow forumites,

I'm posting this on behalf of my sister (I say behalf, she does not know I'm posting this, I'm more interested in becoming informed on the matter). I'll keep the story as short as possible.

My sister used to live in the town X. She also used to work in the town X. When she bought her first car (some five years ago) she insured it for social use as she could walk to work (her work was so close, it would have taken longer to drive!). Her insurance has always auto-renewed and she's been happily insured since!

Last year she decided to move to Town Y - this is about 4 miles from her work in Town X so she'd drive to work every day.

I think we all know where this is going....

So she's had an accident and potentially wrote off someones car, though their is minimal damage to hers (from how it's been described to me, despite what she says, I think she would almost certainly be found at fault).

Upon calling her insurer, and naively informing them she was on her way to work - they've informed her that as she's not covered for commuting to a single place of work, she's essentially uninsured. For completeness, she called the police who set up diversions.

She has received the details form from the other party, which includes details that suggest the other party may be claiming for whiplash.

She doesn't seem too fussed about this, telling me 'well, I'll see what happens' and I don't push further on the matter (I don't want to scare the life out of her)... but as I see it, will she not be personally liable for the value of their car (if it's a write off) and any compensation? This is not including legal representation if the matter goes to court (which it likely will)... this could easily go into the 10's of thousands?

I can't help but think this is extremely serious?

EDIT: before the ball gets rolling, save the comments of "she should have updated her policy when she moved" as that much is pretty obvious.

Car_54

You're right, it is extremely serious.


So far as the third party claim is concerned, her insurers are obliged to deal with that. However, they will have the right to reclaim the costs from your sister.


If the police decide to take action, she seems to have no defence and is looking at six points and a fine.

SHAFT

Exodi wrote: »

Hello fellow forumites,

I'm posting this on behalf of my sister (I say behalf, she does not know I'm posting this, I'm more interested in becoming informed on the matter). I'll keep the story as short as possible.

My sister used to live in the town X. She also used to work in the town X. When she bought her first car (some five years ago) she insured it for social use as she could walk to work (her work was so close, it would have taken longer to drive!). Her insurance has always auto-renewed and she's been happily insured since!

Last year she decided to move to Town Y - this is about 4 miles from her work in Town X so she'd drive to work every day.

I think we all know where this is going....

So she's had an accident and potentially wrote off someones car, though their is minimal damage to hers (from how it's been described to me, despite what she says, I think she would almost certainly be found at fault).

Upon calling her insurer, and naively informing them she was on her way to work - they've informed her that as she's not covered for commuting to a single place of work, she's essentially uninsured. For completeness, she called the police who set up diversions.

She has received the details form from the other party, which includes details that suggest the other party may be claiming for whiplash.

She doesn't seem too fussed about this, telling me 'well, I'll see what happens' and I don't push further on the matter (I don't want to scare the life out of her)... but as I see it, will she not be personally liable for the value of their car (if it's a write off) and any compensation? This is not including legal representation if the matter goes to court (which it likely will)... this could easily go into the 10's of thousands?

I can't help but think this is extremely serious?

EDIT: before the ball gets rolling, save the comments of "she should have updated her policy when she moved" as that much is pretty obvious.

I don't know where you get the technically uninsured from given the insurance have confirmed she's not covered.

The worst thing she can do now is try and backtrack by lying to the insurance company.

Aylesbury_Duck

Potentially very serious, yes.

Are you sure she’s correct about the level of cover being social only and the detail of the conversation with the insurer? Your wording is a little odd on that point. In my experience, policies can sometimes be SDLC - social, domestic, leisure and commuting, the commuting being to a single place of work. The extra business use cover normally covers travel between work locations, essentially “on duty” driving. Why did they say “you’re not insured to drive to a single place of work” when I would have thought they would have simply said “you’re not insured to drive to work”?

I might be barking up the wrong tree but the words you used seemed odd.

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Potentially very serious, yes.

Are you sure she’s correct about the level of cover being social only and the detail of the conversation with the insurer? Your wording is a little odd on that point. In my experience, policies can sometimes be SDLC - social, domestic, leisure and commuting, the commuting being to a single place of work. The extra business use cover normally covers travel between work locations, essentially “on duty” driving. Why did they say “you’re not insured to drive to a single place of work” when I would have thought they would have simply said “you’re not insured to drive to work”?

I might be barking up the wrong tree but the words you used seemed odd.

No, makes sense.

She's not covered for commuting - she opted to save a little on the premium by going for an SDP-only policy. Then she used the car for commuting.

They're specifying "single place of work" to differentiate from her not being covered for business use. Which she isn't. But isn't relevant, because the collision didn't happen during business use.

Yes, she's going to be liable for damage to the other driver's vehicle, if the collision is found to be her fault. That'll include the costs of any injuries, hire car, etc.
Yes, she's at risk of a prosecution for driving whilst uninsured, whichever way liability goes.
Yes, this is going to be expensive...

SHAFT

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Potentially very serious, yes.

Are you sure she’s correct about the level of cover being social only and the detail of the conversation with the insurer? Your wording is a little odd on that point. In my experience, policies can sometimes be SDLC - social, domestic, leisure and commuting, the commuting being to a single place of work. The extra business use cover normally covers travel between work locations, essentially “on duty” driving. Why did they say “you’re not insured to drive to a single place of work” when I would have thought they would have simply said “you’re not insured to drive to work”?

I might be barking up the wrong tree but the words you used seemed odd.

Because she's not insured to do so.


That's how they class commuting these days.

Aylesbury_Duck

Fair enough. I’ve had to have full business use for years so hadn’t appreciated they’d introduced different categories under that level. I’d hoped for the OP’s sister’s sake there’d been a misunderstanding but it seems not.

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Fair enough. I’ve had to have full business use for years so hadn’t appreciated they’d introduced different categories under that level. I’d hoped for the OP’s sister’s sake there’d been a misunderstanding but it seems not.

I don't think it's anything new - I'm pretty sure SDP/SDP+C/Bus has been the choice for as long as I can remember.

Aylesbury_Duck

I’m sure that years ago my SDP policy covered a commute to and from my place of work (but not business mileage). Mind you, we are talking about 20 years ago so I’m probably mistaken.

SHAFT

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I’m sure that years ago my SDP policy covered a commute to and from my place of work (but not business mileage). Mind you, we are talking about 20 years ago so I’m probably mistaken.

No, I think you're correct. Commuting used to be standard along with driving other vehicles on comprehensive policies.

Exodi

As AdrianC has said, Social, Social + Commuting to a single place of work & Business seem to be the general levels of cover nowadays.

Sadly I doubt there is any misunderstanding - her insurer was the person who informed her she was uninsured (unless they're mistaken their own policy).

It was as I feared, likely disastrously expensive (she works in a supermarket)...

I perhaps think I will not mention any of this to her; she may even be putting on a front to deal with it.

Sad