Police, car insurance -driving uninsured car on "driving cars not owned clause"

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

There are differences - off the top of my head:

RTA provides cover for legal liability for third party injury/death (unlimited); third party property damage (to £1 million); emergrency treatment fees; defence/claimant's costs; and foreign use to comply with the EU directives. All is only given when the incident occurs in a public place.

TPO extends this to being operative in any place within territorial limits; the third party property damage limit is usally increased to £20 million; and it provides for passenger indemnity and indemnity to your estate.

Then perhaps you can answer why in the case I highlighted above, that Admiral tried to argue that as it took place on private property they were not liable, and it was only because the car park was deemed to be "public road" that Admiral was found to be liable?

MarkyMarkD

I think, Wig, that the reason John is not listening to what you are saying is that you aren't making a very convincing case.

The entire point of a legally-required certificate of insurance is that it's all that is required to show that you are insured, under UK law.

The only exception you've highlighted in your own policy which is relevant is the one which requires your existing vehicle to still be roadworthy (or words to that effect).

I don't believe, for a second, that your insurer would refuse to meet a third party claim because of the exception that you refer to. I believe that they would meet the claim - as the certificate of insurance requires them to do - and then claim the expense back from you. Insurance policies include terms to enable insurers to recover costs from the insured under such circumstances.

Tucker

You would probably struggle to find a current day insurer that offered RTA only cover as most do a minimum of TPO, but many Driving other car extensions are RTA.

I can't say I know the definition of a public road and what constitutes private land, but if driving on your DOC part, you could find yourself in a difficult legal position should you have an accident on private property.

But that's not the only difference between RTA and TPO, there are others as the link shows with regard to passenger liability and the like.

I was sad enough to have studied the exact details when I was doing a Chartered Institute of Insurance qualification along with other useless facts about marine policies and things that I have thankfully forgotten..:T

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

Then perhaps you can answer why in the case I highlighted above, that Admiral tried to argue that as it took place on private property they were not liable, and it was only because the car park was deemed to be "public road" that Admiral was found to be liable?

I haven't read the case but I suspect that the situation was something like this:

The incident occurred but on investigation the insurer found out that there was some breach of policy conditions.

Therefore they could then exclude all but RTA liability as a matter of course (as RTA liability cannot be avoided for certain stipulated breaches, even if the policy is void). Then in an attempt to avoid RTA liability as well, they argued that as the incident happened outside a public place, there was in fact no RTA liability either.

raskazz

Tucker wrote: »

I was sad enough to have studied the exact details when I was doing a Chartered Institute of Insurance qualification along with other useless facts about marine policies and things that I have thankfully forgotten..:T

I know the feeling - something like implied warranties are only found in marine policies, and concern the seaworthiness of the vessel? Zzzzzzzz

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

I haven't read the case but I suspect that the situation was something like this:

The incident occurred but on investigation the insurer found out that there was some breach of policy conditions.

Therefore they could then exclude all but RTA liability as a matter of course (as RTA liability cannot be avoided for certain stipulated breaches, even if the policy is void). Then in an attempt to avoid RTA liability as well, they argued that as the incident happened outside a public place, there was in fact no RTA liability either.

A good answer. :T

I have just read a policy booklet and have found no exclusions to private property, therefore I can only agree that TPO cover does extend to private property.

The long and short of it is that I now agree with Tucker, that insurers give cover for private property for their policy holders and named drivers, and this cover is sometimes removed on the "driving other cars" section.


Here is a link to the case
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd981022/clarke01.htm
And this confirms that it was as you suggested, and I was wrong, it was his friend driving. His friend though was not insured, so General Accident, tried to avoid their statutory duty to compensate by arguing that it was not a "road". So you were right. :T

Tucker

Nice one. Sorted............

I've found bits of info that were still embedded in my head today, that I didn't know where still there!!!

vaio

oldagetraveller wrote: »

"The policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a car not
owned by the policyholder and not hired to the policyholder under a hire
purchase or annual leasing agreement and is not used in connection with
the motor trade. This is provided the owner of the car has valid insurance
in force on that car but which does not cover the policyholder of this Policy
to drive that car."

The above taken directly from my own Certificate of Insurance. This clause might be different with other insurers but I've never known that to be the case. Hopefully answers the question fully?

Just looked at mine and the wording is identical EXCEPT that mine doesn’t have the last sentence. The debate rumbles on and on and on

vaio

Wig wrote: »

…….If I was the plod dealing with you, I would not accept your certificate as proof positive, I would possibly (depending on your manner with me) confiscate your vehicle and ask you to provide your policy to the police station and a letter from your insurer……...

Makes you wonder what is the point of a certificate of insurance.

MarkyMarkD

The wording which doesn't appear in your policy doesn't appear in most policies. It is by no means standard.