Motorbike insurance problem

sandyadler

My son sold his motorbike and forgot to cancel his insurance. The party who bought the bike unfortunately crashed it almost immediately. My sons insurance company are now stating that the buying party’s insurance company are intending to claim on my sons policy as it hadn’t been cancelled at the time of the  crash! Is this a legitimate claim, if the V5 stated he was not the owner at time of the crash? 

It all seems a dubious to me!!

400ixl

Yes it is a legitimate claim as they are still jointly liable and could be responsible for 50% of the costs.

Your son will also have to declare a claim against his policy for future policies and could lose some no claims if it is not protected.

Unfortunately a lesson on why you cancel a policy, or at least get the vehicle removed.

DanDare999

sandyadler said:

My son sold his motorbike and forgot to cancel his insurance. The party who bought the bike unfortunately crashed it almost immediately. My sons insurance company are now stating that the buying party’s insurance company are intending to claim on my sons policy as it hadn’t been cancelled at the time of the  crash! Is this a legitimate claim, if the V5 stated he was not the owner at time of the crash? 

It all seems a dubious to me!!

The V5 clearly states it's not proof of ownership, even if his name is on it. 

400ixl

Ownership is irrelevant anyway. The asset is insured under that policy and it must be presumed another policy of the new owner.

DullGreyGuy

sandyadler said:

My son sold his motorbike and forgot to cancel his insurance. The party who bought the bike unfortunately crashed it almost immediately. My sons insurance company are now stating that the buying party’s insurance company are intending to claim on my sons policy as it hadn’t been cancelled at the time of the  crash! Is this a legitimate claim, if the V5 stated he was not the owner at time of the crash? 

It all seems a dubious to me!!

Need more detail about the crash and why the buyer's insurer is saying they are looking to your insurance.

To try and reduce the number involved in accidents with uninsured drivers there is the concept of "Road Traffic Act" insurer, at its most basic, it says that if a vehicle has insurance on it and there is an identified driver then the vehicle insurer must pay any third party liability even if the driver isnt covered by the policy. The law allows the insurance company to recover their outlay from the driver and allows them to recover from the policyholder if they are complicit in the matter.

This is intended for when you let your mate borrow your car without adding them to your insurance and they then run someone over. Your insurer pays out the £50,000 of damages to the pedestrian and then attempts to get either of you to repay them. 

It also covers situations potentially like this where someone sells their vehicle an fails to cancel the insurance, however in most cases its when the buyer hasn't bought insurance. Its also, as mentioned, only for third party losses and not damage to the borrowed/sold vehicle. 

So 1) was it a fault accident involving another party?  2) As they have their own insurance there is the question of why they aren't dealing with the claim, assuming their policy is valid then there is no claim on the RTA Insurer. 

Now it could just be an enquiry to see if its a case of dual insurance or it could be their insurance was void for some reason in which case it comes down to the details 

Rolandtheroadie

Don't know how it turned out, but.
https://www.visordown.com/news/general/biker-may-be-forced-pay-thousands-after-banned-new-owner-has-fatal-crash

facade

Seems like there is something missing. I wonder if the new owner wasn't actually covered by their policy for what they were using the 'bike for e.g. deliveries/couriering, so there were two invalid policies in force and they are splitting it..

If the new owner had valid insurance in their own name that covered their use of the 'bike, it would be fully liable. The chasing other policies happens when the driver is uninsured (but identified, which is really odd, as if they are identified as not being covered, the policy has to pay, but if they aren't identified, so they could actually have been covered, they aren't).

The relevant legislation is supposedly section 148 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it seems rather a stretch to me.

Son's insurance would hardly put their hand in their pocket unless they were compelled to by The Law.

DullGreyGuy

facade said:

Seems like there is something missing.

If the new owner had insurance in their own name that covered their use of the 'bike, it would be liable. The chasing other policies happens when the driver is uninsured (but identified, which is really odd, as if they are identified as not being covered, the policy has to pay, but if they aren't identified, so they could actually have been covered, they aren't).

The relevant legislation is supposedly section 148 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but it seems rather a stretch to me.

It can also happen if they are checking that there isnt dual insurance, two policies that does cover the incident under normal terms... eg if the OP had an Any Rider policy.

Its section 151 for an identified uninsured driver... 148 is about if the vehicle isnt of roadworthy condition, driver drunk etc. Article 75 of the MIB can also apply 

sandyadler

Thank you everyone for your comments, most helpful…it seems we need some legal advice.

Manxman_in_exile

sandyadler said:

Thank you everyone for your comments, most helpful…it seems we need some legal advice.

Surely the first thing your son needs to do is to find out from his insurer why the buyer's insurer is trying to claim from your son's policy?

If I've understood the previous comments correctly, that should only be happening if (1) your son hadn't cancelled his insurance after he sold the 'bike, AND (2) his buyer wasn't subsequently insured.

I'd suggest your son gets all the details before possibly wasting money on legal advice.