Duckduckgo Search Engine Seems To Be...
Technology0 min ago
Something To Be Aware Of.....
41 Answers
https:/
If a claim arises expect to have the insurance company scrutinise the purpose of your journey.
If a claim arises expect to have the insurance company scrutinise the purpose of your journey.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not saying illegality invalidates insurance. Many times I have pointed it out to the "void" brigade. All I'm saying is that any illegality an IC becomes aware of gives them a stick with which to beat a claimant. The link mentions "invalidate" that's wrong but it does mean that the IC have a reason to not pay out or limit payout.
//NJ - surely they can avoid payment for damage to your own car as policies normally state that the vehicle should be in roadworthy condition.//
Yes they can. S148 relates to the cover required by the RTA (which is personal injury to Third Parties - which includes passengers - or damage to property owned by them). That said, they would have to show that the vehicle being unroadworthy contributed in whole or part to the damage. They would have trouble, for example, claiming that a car damaged whilst parked suffered the damage because it was unroadworthy.
Yes they can. S148 relates to the cover required by the RTA (which is personal injury to Third Parties - which includes passengers - or damage to property owned by them). That said, they would have to show that the vehicle being unroadworthy contributed in whole or part to the damage. They would have trouble, for example, claiming that a car damaged whilst parked suffered the damage because it was unroadworthy.
//NJ
//Would taking your wife / husband to work count as non essential , I wonder//
What do you think ?//
I think (a) the regulations are nonsense (see why below) and (b) even if it was deemed you had left home "illegally" that would not invalidate your motor insurance. (Bear in mind that it is "leaving home" which the legislation seeks to restrict. It doesn't restrict how you travel once you've left).
There are 13 "exceptions" under which you may leave home. But the Act specifically says that
"...the the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in regulation 6 applies;".
This indicates quite clearly that the list is not exhaustive and that other reasons may be seen as an acceptable exception. So, your wife must go to work (few people go to work for fun) and cannot work at home; she cannot drive or cannot park and a car is the only way of getting there. So it is necessary for you to leave home to drive her there.
This part of the legislation ("Restrictions on Leaving Home") is really nonsense because it is so broad that it means virtually anybody can leave home at virtually any time they choose. They can choose any one of 13 listed exceptions and if none of them fits their circumstances they can make one up of their own. I cannot really see how anybody would be foolish enough to fall foul of it.
Back to the insurance question, a person under a curfew ordered by a court must not leave home during certain hours. If they do and they drive their car (which is otherwise all legal) are they driving uninsured? Of course not. There is not a court in the land who will find them guilty of driving without insurance and not an insurer in the country who would get away with refusing to meet a claim.
//Would taking your wife / husband to work count as non essential , I wonder//
What do you think ?//
I think (a) the regulations are nonsense (see why below) and (b) even if it was deemed you had left home "illegally" that would not invalidate your motor insurance. (Bear in mind that it is "leaving home" which the legislation seeks to restrict. It doesn't restrict how you travel once you've left).
There are 13 "exceptions" under which you may leave home. But the Act specifically says that
"...the the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in regulation 6 applies;".
This indicates quite clearly that the list is not exhaustive and that other reasons may be seen as an acceptable exception. So, your wife must go to work (few people go to work for fun) and cannot work at home; she cannot drive or cannot park and a car is the only way of getting there. So it is necessary for you to leave home to drive her there.
This part of the legislation ("Restrictions on Leaving Home") is really nonsense because it is so broad that it means virtually anybody can leave home at virtually any time they choose. They can choose any one of 13 listed exceptions and if none of them fits their circumstances they can make one up of their own. I cannot really see how anybody would be foolish enough to fall foul of it.
Back to the insurance question, a person under a curfew ordered by a court must not leave home during certain hours. If they do and they drive their car (which is otherwise all legal) are they driving uninsured? Of course not. There is not a court in the land who will find them guilty of driving without insurance and not an insurer in the country who would get away with refusing to meet a claim.
Am in full agreement with the judge on this. While a feel strongly that rules on lockdown aught to be followed a can't see claims being turned down for driving to a freinds house or to a castle an 100 miles away. Anyway if insurers are planning this to they should warn us and give a refund on are premiums as there covering us for less
//Could the insurers argue successfully that she could have taken the bus/public transport ?//
They might try. But insurers are going down a very slippery path if they seek to deny cover for people who are almost certainly driving legally. My analogy of the person on a curfew demonstrates the difficulties they would face. As mentioned, by the same principle, anybody speeding (i.e. travelling illegally) would also face the same problem and quite simply, they don't.
The idea of the Coronavirus legislation is to prevent people mixing. It doesn't achieve that aim but that's another argument - that's the idea. A husband driving his wife to work presents no risk to the aim of the legislation. Firstly, I cannot see the police even thinking of taking action against the driver under the Coronavirus legislation in those circumstances. But if they did issue a fixed penalty and the driver took the matter to court I cannot imagine any court finding that he left home without a reasonable excuse.
They might try. But insurers are going down a very slippery path if they seek to deny cover for people who are almost certainly driving legally. My analogy of the person on a curfew demonstrates the difficulties they would face. As mentioned, by the same principle, anybody speeding (i.e. travelling illegally) would also face the same problem and quite simply, they don't.
The idea of the Coronavirus legislation is to prevent people mixing. It doesn't achieve that aim but that's another argument - that's the idea. A husband driving his wife to work presents no risk to the aim of the legislation. Firstly, I cannot see the police even thinking of taking action against the driver under the Coronavirus legislation in those circumstances. But if they did issue a fixed penalty and the driver took the matter to court I cannot imagine any court finding that he left home without a reasonable excuse.
Its been obvious from the beginning even for a novice like me that laws that are made over night by any government, or an insurance company who may choose to try and bend a perfectly legal insurance policy in their favor will leave many loop holes wide open for argument, and has been said many times, most of them impossible to enforce.
Appears to be confirmed fake news.
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
What Worries You Most Should Labour Win...
News11 mins ago
News13 mins ago
