Another thing about insurance

[Oldrat]

As a former traffic cop I see that there are
still lots of folks who equate no tax or MOT = no insurance, which is not the case.

Anyway I thought I’d use the forum to educate some about another circumstance that might cost a policy holder dear perhaps one of you might have let a policy lapse???

Here we go..
1. You own and insure a vehicle
2. With a week left on the policy you sell the vehicle.
3. Perhaps because it’s too much bother and there are only a few days left on the policy you fail to notify the insurance company of the sale.
4. The new owner unfortunately doesn’t take out insurance at the time they drive it away maybe, they’ll intend to insure it next week.
5. During this time, the new owner has a crash causing serious injuries to others before they’ve put insurance in place.


Who should the injured parties claim from?

Options
1. Sue the new owner personally.

2. Get the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB, a pooled insurance company fund) to payout for the uninsured claim.

3. Claim against the previous owner…you!


Answer below…











Answer 3
There is a current insurance policy still in force because you didn’t close it, so the company are obliged to cover third party claims.

And the icing on the cake, the insurance company can sue you personally to recover costs because you failed to reasonably notify them of a change in circumstances.


Morale- notify all changes promptly.

 

[sedge]

ROFL - and yet those who don't remember anything about careless Claude whose house was only half insured, and have never heard of the Vehicle & General or who footed the bill when they went bust overnight - still all moan about how insurance companies charge far more than they ought to for their products, just as they did then and why they were all persuaded to choose V&G instead of older better established insurers.

In the 'trade' I have to say amongst colleagues, any insurer selling it cheap and piling it high were collectively named 'The Dustbin & General- - D & G for short. It still applies.

 

[Euromobil]

Oldrat & Sedge,

So does this also apply if a van is stolen or being driven by someone not named on the policy ? Is the policyholder still liable?

 

[Oldrat]

Yes most certainly.
If your uncancellled policy is the only one in place then that’s where the claim will sit.

 

[mofurt]

As I understand it, if you've sold the vehicle but not cancelled the policy, then effectively the new owner is driving it with your permission so the insurers can come after you to be reimbursed as you failed to notify them of the change.

If the vehicle is stolen, then involved in an accident, then the result of that accident may come from your policy, but the insurance company won't chase you for the funds as the theft etc. are one of the risks you've insured yourself against.

That's my understanding, anyway.
There was a very high profile case recently of someone selling a motorbike where the purchasing rider was uninsured, banned and then killed themselves on it. The previous owner was liable. Search for "Paul Duffy motorcycle insurance" for lots of commentary on the case from various angles (searching in this instance is probably better than me selecting one or two sites).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nicholsong]

Yes most certainly.
If your uncancellled policy is the only one in place then that’s where the claim will sit.

Maybe not if the seller was the sole named driver?

 

[Oldrat]

The insurance company are obliged to cover a 3rd party’s claims anyway.

 

[Euromobil]

In the interest of "fun",
a) your car is sorned and not insured, a thief steals it and drives away, obviously driving without insurance.
b) your car is insured and stolen but the insurance company is liable for 3rd party claims,
Is he driving without insurance ?

 

[Oldrat]

1. Yes
2. Yes because he is not covered by insurance.

 

[HKF]

OK, I'll stick my neck on the block.

The previous owner's policy would be voided, as he no longer owns the vehicle, regardless of whether or not he's notified the insurance company.

The new owner is driving without insurance.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sedge]

Yes he is driving without insurance so can be prosecuted for that fine - BUT the former owner's policy still has to cough up for any third party injury or damage the twat caused. They just don't have to cough up for the damage done to the vehicle itself.

 

[Euromobil]

Seems a salutary warning to either immediately transfer your insurance to a new vehicle if purchased, or cancel it

 

[ElliesBoss]

Insurance is a strange thing. My daughter had her car bumped in a car park a few days ago. She contacted the managing company for the council owned car park to see if that had CCTV coverage of the incident. They told her that they could only respond to requests from insurance companies and police. Contact insurance company and guess what, they want to put her premium up. Repair is less than her excess so an expensive day.
Will the insurance company do anything? I very much doubt it.

 

[HKF]

Insurance is a strange thing. My daughter had her car bumped in a car park a few days ago. She contacted the managing company for the council owned car park to see if that had CCTV coverage of the incident. They told her that they could only respond to requests from insurance companies and police. Contact insurance company and guess what, they want to put her premium up. Repair is less than her excess so an expensive day.
Will the insurance company do anything? I very much doubt it.

Ask for the CCTV evidence via a Freedom of Information request. It's easy to do

How to make a freedom of information (FOI) request

How to make a request from public bodies and organisations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), how much it costs and how long it takes

www.gov.uk