Insurance and licences

[road king]

dose anyone know if you can get full insurance for a bike you dont have a license to ride? like if you you go out and get a 750 when you only have your restricted license. i imagine it wouldn't be cheep but dose anyone do it?

[Virago]

You're not serious, are you? Really...? :gob:

[NighthawkNZ]

dose anyone know if you can get full insurance for a bike you dont have a license to ride? like if you you go out and get a 750 when you only have your restricted license. i imagine it wouldn't be cheep but dose anyone do it?


you have 2 shows... no show and shit show...

Are allowed to own it? yes... Are you allowed to ride it on the road? legally No.

Insurance companies won't fully insure you, but you can sign saying someone with a full license can ride it and insure it. But if you ride and have a accident you will not be covered.

The most you will most likely get is fire theft...

[JATZ]

You're not serious, are you? Really...? :gob:
Thats what I thought:eek5:

[Forest]

dose anyone know if you can get full insurance for a bike you dont have a license to ride? like if you you go out and get a 750 when you only have your restricted license. i imagine it wouldn't be cheep but dose anyone do it?

Not sure if you're serious, but you cannot get vehicle insurance that will cover you outside the conditions of your license.

[Matt_TG]

One of the terms of an insurance policy would be that you were legally allowed to ride the bike. That could be a) it's yours or you have the owner's authority to ride it and b) you are licenced to ride it.

You *could* get a claim paid if the fact you were riding outside the terms of your licence had nothing to do with the incident and insurers may not actually ask you whether you have your full licence when you sign up - but the fact you intend to ride it outside the terms of your licence is what they call a Material Fact, something you are obliged to disclose or insurers can cancel the policy without paying any claim.

Your call, take the risk and hope it doesn't turn to custard at claim time. We ask for licences for some claims and keep a photocopy on file, it would be apparent then, doubly so if your assessor knows a bit about bikes or licences.

[Slyer]

Yep you'd only be protected against theft/damage to the bike while you aren't riding it.

[hayd3n]

fire and theft
missus used to work in insurence

[Oscar]

dose anyone know if you can get full insurance for a bike you dont have a license to ride? like if you you go out and get a 750 when you only have your restricted license. i imagine it wouldn't be cheep but dose anyone do it?

Sure you can.

You'd have to declare it, and I doubt you'd be insured whilst riding it on the road. However other riders could be covered, and you'd be insured riding on private property.

[nodrog]

Sure you can.

You'd have to declare it, and I doubt you'd be insured whilst riding it on the road. However other riders could be covered, and you'd be insured riding on private property.

you are correct, the missus had her adult sized bike fully insured while she was still on her restricted, of course she wasnt covered while riding it on the road, but everybody else who had a full license was.

[slimjim]

fire and theft
missus used to work in insurence


yup must have been to ask...
however as all have said above..:niceone:

[NOMIS]

funny that i asked state, who insures me atm.
The would cover me for a 600cc hornet and i told them I was on restricetd,. I didnt ask any more questions however,

[Slyer]

You would be covered but not if you were riding it out of your license conditions.

[Ragingrob]

Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

[NighthawkNZ]

You can get full insurance no problem... as long as if you don't ride it, but if you have an accident the insurance company does not have to pay out due to you not being on the correct license.

My guess is if you tell them you want to ride it then they can relistically only insure for Fire theft etc...

[Oscar]

Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

And your single shred of evidence for this statement is...?

[Slyer]

Because why should they cover you when you're riding out of license conditions?

[Ragingrob]

And your single shred of evidence for this statement is...?

Um... Well in all insurance contracts it states that you must be riding to the law and your license conditions. If you aren't, then your insurance will be void.

That good enough for ya? It's common sense... Don't really need to provide evidence for it... Get your mummy to ring insurance and ask if they'll insure you if you're breaking the law.

[Slyer]

Well they do payout if you were speeding and crashed don't they?

[Oscar]

Um... Well in all insurance contracts it states that you must be riding to the law and your license conditions. If you aren't, then your insurance will be void.

That good enough for ya? It's common sense... Don't really need to provide evidence for it... Get your mummy to ring insurance and ask if they'll insure you if you're breaking the law.

That isn't actually what you said, is it?


Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

This infers that they would take your money knowing the state of your license and knowing that they wouldn't have to pay.

This is fraud.

Notwithstanding that, just because it's in your insurance contract, doesn't necessarily make it so. Avoiding a claim based solely on a contract clause that has no relevance to the claim breaches the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977.

You should ask your Mummy next time - maybe you wouldn't end up looking like such a gobshyte...

[Ragingrob]

Well they do payout if you were speeding and crashed don't they?

No, not if they can prove you were speeding. If you are breaking the law, you will not be covered, unless maybe another party was involved and somehow then can get the blame, or if there's no proof you were breaking the law.

[Oscar]

Well they do payout if you were speeding and crashed don't they?

Maybe.
Depends on the circumstances.
If the fact that you were speeding caused the claim, yer gonna be out of luck.
If yer tooling down the motorway at 110km/h and get hit by a drunk driver, you'd almost certainly be paid.

[Oscar]

No, not if they can prove you were speeding. If you are breaking the law, you will not be covered, unless maybe another party was involved and somehow then can get the blame, or if there's no proof you were breaking the law.

You should stick to your specialist subject.
What is it?

[Slyer]

They'll gladly take your money yes, they'll mention that you will only be covered if you are riding under your license conditions too.

[Ragingrob]

That isn't actually what you said, is it?



This infers that they would take your money knowing the state of your license and knowing that they wouldn't have to pay.

This is fraud.

Notwithstanding that, just because it's in your insurance contract, doesn't necessarily make it so. Avoiding a claim based solely on a contract clause that has no relevance to the claim breaches the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977.

You should ask your Mummy next time - maybe you wouldn't end up looking like such a gobshyte...

Hey I didn't say that they would insure you with comprehensive insurance.

They would insure you for your bike, no matter what license you have, but if you have the wrong license then they wont insure the bike while you're on it on the public road.

Or, you could say you have your full license, where they'd fully insure you on the basis on you telling the truth, and since it's a lie then you wont be covered. And yes, they would gladly insure you then, without knowing that they wont have to cover you.

Maybe you should specify what you're asking evidence for next time.

How can a contract clause have no relevance to a claim when every claim has gotta deal with the law, and you are breaking the law in the first instance?!

[Ragingrob]

You should stick to your specialist subject.
What is it?

Giving specialist law advice to common sense questions on the internet... And yours?

[Ragingrob]

They'll gladly take your money yes, they'll mention that you will only be covered if you are riding under your license conditions too.

Exactly...

Insurance company: "Yes we will insure you, but you must understand that you wont be covered if you're riding the bike due to the fact that it is outside your license conditions, are you sure you still want to pay us to insure you when we can, i.e. fire and theft?"

Idiot "Um... Yes I definitely want to pay you for that"

Insurance company: "You are now insured when viable".

:done:

Unless I am truly mistaken, and they are allowed to reject you their services?

[Ragingrob]

Maybe.
Depends on the circumstances.
If the fact that you were speeding caused the claim, yer gonna be out of luck.
If yer tooling down the motorway at 110km/h and get hit by a drunk driver, you'd almost certainly be paid.

Although it'd be the drunk driver's insurance company who will pay wont it?

If you speed past a cop and crash, then they are no way gonna pay ya. Sure, if somebody is doing something 'more illegal' and cause the crash, then they may be held liable and your insurance company will go to theirs in order to pay ya.

[Oscar]

Hey I didn't say that they would insure you with comprehensive insurance.

They would insure you for your bike, no matter what license you have, but if you have the wrong license then they wont insure the bike while you're on it on the public road.

Or, you could say you have your full license, where they'd fully insure you on the basis on you telling the truth, and since it's a lie then you wont be covered. And yes, they would gladly insure you then, without knowing that they wont have to cover you.

Maybe you should specify what you're asking evidence for next time.

How can a contract clause have no relevance to a claim when every claim has gotta deal with the law, and you are breaking the law in the first instance?!

Jeez, yer grasping at straws now (or grasping at summat).

Your scenario would be incorrect no matter what type of policy it was.
You inferred that the insurer would enter into the contract knowing it wouldn't have to pay out.

There are plenty of instances where contracts are voided by common law. This is one - the various Insurance Law Reform Acts, The Fair Trading Act and The Consumer Guarantees Act all effect insurance contracts.

The concept of Common Average is s good example - it's in a lot of policies, but it is rarely used.

[Oscar]

Giving specialist law advice to common sense questions on the internet... And yours?

At the moment it appears to be correcting your errors.

[Oscar]

Although it'd be the drunk driver's insurance company who will pay wont it?

If you speed past a cop and crash, then they are no way gonna pay ya. Sure, if somebody is doing something 'more illegal' and cause the crash, then they may be held liable and your insurance company will go to theirs in order to pay ya.

Jeez, make up your mind will you?
One minute you say Insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, now you've got them paying for drunken drivers...

An insurer can not rely on an exclusion where that exclusion is not relevant to the claim. Example - you have a warrant that expired last week and you get hit by a red light runner - can the insurer decline your claim (the policy wording certainly allows them to)?

If you are really "giving specialist legal advice", it might pay to read the relevant legislation.

[Ragingrob]

Jeez, yer grasping at straws now (or grasping at summat).

Your scenario would be incorrect no matter what type of policy it was.
You inferred that the insurer would enter into the contract knowing it wouldn't have to pay out.

There are plenty of instances where contracts are voided by common law. This is one - the various Insurance Law Reform Acts, The Fair Trading Act and The Consumer Guarantees Act all effect insurance contracts.

The concept of Common Average is s good example - it's in a lot of policies, but it is rarely used.

Hmmm well I did make sure to point out in that post that the insurance company would not know that they don't have to pay out, as one can always lie and say yip full license. And it that instance it's fully on you right?

My original post in saying that they would 'gladly' insure you, was not meant to imply full comprehensive insurance if they know it's not possible. I should have added a bit more to it, but I'd thought that almost everyone had made that point already.

I was just adding to the fact that yes they may insure you, but not for when you're riding on the bike, and therefore they wont pay out if you are.

Sorry if ya thought I meant otherwise.

And when you asked for evidence I thought you were implying that you will still be covered when riding outside of your license conditions.

:girlfight:

Wow I love misinterpretations on the internet!

:Playnice:

[Ragingrob]

Jeez, make up your mind will you?
One minute you say Insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, now you've got them paying for drunken drivers...

An insurer can not rely on an exclusion where that exclusion is not relevant to the claim. Example - you have a warrant that expired last week and you get hit by a red light runner - can the insurer decline your claim (the policy wording certainly allows them to)?

If you are really "giving specialist legal advice", it might pay to read the relevant legislation.

Of course insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, why else do they have contracts?

Yes if a drunk hits you, surely it'll be on their insurance to pay you out?

I thought my "giving specialist legal advice" was clearly a joke.

Don't take everything so seriously!

[Oscar]

Of course insurers will use their contracts to avoid claims, why else do they have contracts?

Yes if a drunk hits you, surely it'll be on their insurance to pay you out?

I thought my "giving specialist legal advice" was clearly a joke.

Don't take everything so seriously!

Please try and keep up.

1.Insurers may try to use their contracts to avoid claims, but they're not always right. Consumer protection laws prevent this now.

2. The drunk will void his insurance the minute he steps into his car pissed. Your insurer will pay you and seek compensation directly from the drunk.

3. In my example, the insurance contract would allow the insurer to avoid the claim because you were speeding. It can only do this if your speed contributed to the claim.

As for taking stuff seriously, I work in the industry. How would you like it if I spread disinformation about your job? (although I have to say I really don't know much about toilet cleaning).

KB should be a place where people receive accurate advice...

[Ragingrob]

Please try and keep up.

1.Insurers may try to use their contracts to avoid claims, but they're not always right. Consumer protection laws prevent this now.

Wouldn't they always try to use their contracts to avoid claims, and not always be right? If a customer of yours breached their contract, wouldn't you try to use it against them?


2. The drunk will void his insurance the minute he steps into his car pissed. Your insurer will pay you and seek compensation directly from the drunk.

Gotcha, so in the end it's the drunk who pays you and not your insurance.


3. In my example, the insurance contract would allow the insurer to avoid the claim because you were speeding. It can only do this if your speed contributed to the claim.


Yeah, aren't we already seeing eye to eye on this?


As for taking stuff seriously, I work in the industry. How would you like it if I spread disinformation about your job? (although I have to say I really don't know much about toilet cleaning).

Random abusive cheap shot... Maybe you should take a chill pill. Was I personally attacking you specifically and your job?

Spread all the disinformation about being a student you want. I'll try to get all abusive and win an internet argument that starts from nothing. :niceone:


KB should be a place where people receive accurate advice...

I still believe my original post to be accurate. You took it your own way. Good for you backing up your industry that endeavors and has succeeded to rip many innocent people off in the past.

Sooo... Once again....

Yes you could be insured (as people have already said, for fire and theft and in private), but you would not be covered in the event of a crash if you were riding without a license.

Do you disagree with my statement or not Oscar? And if you do, please kindly refer the thread starter and answer his question rather than answering it by arguing with your interpretation of someone else's answer :yes:

[Slyer]

What the hell are you guys on?

[Oscar]

What the hell are you guys on?

Testosterone.

[Ragingrob]

Testosterone.

Well that's what the shady guy told me the pill was anyway.

[Oscar]

Wouldn't they always try to use their contracts to avoid claims, and not always be right? If a customer of yours breached their contract, wouldn't you try to use it against them?



No.
Not if it was covered by other legislation.



Gotcha, so in the end it's the drunk who pays you and not your insurance.


No.
Your insurer pays you.







Random abusive cheap shot... Maybe you should take a chill pill. Was I personally attacking you specifically and your job?

Spread all the disinformation about being a student you want. I'll try to get all abusive and win an internet argument that starts from nothing. :niceone:



So this:

Get your mummy to ring insurance and ask if they'll insure you if you're breaking the law.
Is not abusive?




I still believe my original post to be accurate. You took it your own way. Good for you backing up your industry that endeavors and has succeeded to rip many innocent people off in the past.


Your original post inferred that insurers would deliberately insure someone knowing that they wouldn't have to pay. Perhaps you should take some (more) English papers so as to write with more clarity.



Sooo... Once again....

Yes you could be insured (as people have already said, for fire and theft and in private), but you would not be covered in the event of a crash if you were riding without a license.

Do you disagree with my statement or not Oscar? And if you do, please kindly refer the thread starter and answer his question rather than answering it by arguing with your interpretation of someone else's answer :yes:

Firstly,licence details are not relevant to a Fire & Theft policy.

Secondly, (and I have answered this twice now) you can insure the bike comprehensively. It would be insured where someone else was riding, or where license details weren't relevant (off road/ private roads or rider training).

[Ragingrob]

Firstly,licence details are not relevant to a Fire & Theft policy.

Secondly, (and I have answered this twice now) you can insure the bike comprehensively. It would be insured where someone else was riding, or where license details weren't relevant (off road/ private roads or rider training).

That is exactly what I've said.

It's not a matter of me inferring, it's a matter of you interpreting.

You've just said yes they will fully insure you, knowing that it wont be insured if you're riding on a public road. Is this not exactly what you've been having a go at me about being wrong?

God!

[Oscar]

That is exactly what I've said.

It's not a matter of me inferring, it's a matter of you interpreting.

You've just said yes they will fully insure you, knowing that it wont be insured if you're riding on a public road. Is this not exactly what you've been having a go at me about being wrong?

God!

Give it up, will you?

You said:

Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

You made a (somewhat stupid) very generalised statement about a complex subject that didn't stand up to scrutiny and has only been explained by your subsequent bleatings.

Don't you have a toilet to clean?

[Ragingrob]

Give it up, will you?

You said:


You made a (somewhat stupid) very generalised statement about a complex subject that didn't stand up to scrutiny and has only been explained by your subsequent bleatings.

Don't you have a toilet to clean?

Answer me this.

Would you, or would you not fully insure a bike with full comprehensive insurance, on the basis that the bike is only covered when off-road, private, or when a fully licensed rider is riding it? Knowing full well that if the original person rides it on a public road then they are not covered?

If you answer is yes (as it should be as that is exactly what you've just said), then well done you've restated my original post of which you've had a big cry over.

If you're answer is no, then you've fully rejected your own statement.


Secondly, (and I have answered this twice now) you can insure the bike comprehensively. It would be insured where someone else was riding, or where license details weren't relevant (off road/ private roads or rider training).

There is your own answer.


Yep they would gladly take your money and say that they'll insure you. Then when ya crash they'll maintain that you were riding outside your licence conditions and therefore outside of the contract, and then you'll have no money.

Fully agreeing with my statement here.

Or are you somehow gonna disagree with me here because of another one of your interpretations of my statement?

What a waste of time, just to explain to some idiot what one little statement meant. Getting abused several times along the way, just to come to the conclusion that oh, what a surprise, my statement was correct the entire time, unless ya don't read it a retarted way.

Well done Oscar :sunny: Let the sun continue to shine outta your own ass.

[Oscar]

Answer me this.

Would you, or would you not fully insure a bike with full comprehensive insurance, on the basis that the bike is only covered when off-road, private, or when a fully licensed rider is riding it? Knowing full well that if the original person rides it on a public road then they are not covered?

If you answer is yes (as it should be as that is exactly what you've just said), then well done you've restated my original post of which you've had a big cry over.

If you're answer is no, then you've fully rejected your own statement.



There is your own answer.



Fully agreeing with my statement here.

Or are you somehow gonna disagree with me here because of another one of your interpretations of my statement?

What a waste of time, just to explain to some idiot what one little statement meant. Getting abused several times along the way, just to come to the conclusion that oh, what a surprise, my statement was correct the entire time, unless ya don't read it a retarted way.

Well done Oscar :sunny: Let the sun continue to shine outta your own ass.


Your statement was open to interpretation because it was nonsense.
It had none of the riders that you subsequently added to it.
Mind you, some of what you added was also incorrect:

Um... Well in all insurance contracts it states that you must be riding to the law and your license conditions. If you aren't, then your insurance will be void.
This is because you are too stupid to accept that your insurance contract doesn't exist in a void - legislation protects the consumer and affects how insurers act.

Stop bleating about how people interpret your fevered dribbling and don't complain about being abused when you start the abuse, little boy.

[Ragingrob]

Your statement was open to interpretation because it was nonsense.
It had none of the riders that you subsequently added to it.
Mind you, some of what you added was also incorrect:

This is because you are too stupid to accept that your insurance contract doesn't exist in a void - legislation protects the consumer and affects how insurers act.

Stop bleating about how people interpret your fevered dribbling and don't complain about being abused when you start the abuse, little boy.

Nonsense? All I said was yes they will take your money and sure, insure you, but you will not be insured if you're involved in a crash. Is that wrong? Please please tell me how this statement is nonsense. JUST because I didn't explain specifically the nature of this position, doesn't mean it is nonsense. Sooo, once again, was my statement false on all accounts? No. Not on any... It would have been if I had specified it wrongly, but no, only you took it wrongly.

Woop dee doo I made a generalisation about insurance contracts. I did not go into detail, and I don't really give a shit. I don't really know why you care so much about a general statement which you interpreted in your own way. Oh yeah I know, cause you're in the industry and therefore an industry expert and therefore you've gotta bestow every single ounce of power you have against a general statement.

Haha, I just find it funny how I made one comment, have said I took your post the wrong way and that I'm sorry for that, yet you feel the need to continue abusing me (what for the fifth time now), to get your "man" fix for the day in the hope that your dick will grow.

I'll give you one thing, you're good at interpreting statements in different ways (allbeit the wrong way), and therefore you must be good at your job in the insurance industry. :niceone:

Sooo.............. once AGAIN to the threadstarter:

Out of all this rubbish, yes you can read my initial statement as is, you can get insured, but it will likely be void if you bugger up due to your license.

That was all I wanted to say, don't ask me about the specifics, I think Oscar's your go-to man. I recommend Dave at Kiwibike insurance if you want a chat with someone a little less ignorant though.

That's me.

:done:

[Oscar]

Nonsense? All I said was yes they will take your money and sure, insure you, but you will not be insured if you're involved in a crash. Is that wrong?


Jeez, you don't give up, do you?

As much as you would like life to be as simple as you, it doesn't work like that.
And to help you understand I'll type this slowly:

In some circumstances, if they issued a comprehensive policy, they would have to pay out regardless of your license status or where you were (including on the road).

[PirateJafa]

In some circumstances, if they issued a comprehensive policy, they would have to pay out regardless of your license status or where you were (including on the road).

From what I gleaned through the drivel and flaming (from both sides) - did I read that, despite the fact that you might not have the correct license to legally ride a bike, that insurance might still have to pay you out if the lack of correct license did not actively contribute to the claim-causing accident? Like in a failure-to-give-way instance where a car has taken out your bike, or rear-ended you at some lights?

Please, elucidate this situation for us.

[Oscar]

From what I gleaned through the drivel and flaming (from both sides) - did I read that, despite the fact that you might not have the correct license to legally ride a bike, that insurance might still have to pay you out if the lack of correct license did not actively contribute to the claim-causing accident? Like in a failure-to-give-way instance where a car has taken out your bike, or rear-ended you at some lights?

Please, elucidate this situation for us.

The Insurance Law Reform Act(s) says that the reason an insurer declines a claim must be directly related to that claim. As I said in my earlier post, if you have no WOF and are hit by a drunk driver, then the insurer can't rely upon that fact (lack of WOF) unless it was related to the accident (no WOF because of bald tyres, say).

Your example is a very good one, and I would argue it and give you a better than even chance of being paid. My points, (completely lost on the toilet cleaner) is that 1) insurance does not begin and end with your policy. There is a plethora of legislation that comes into play 2) never accept the insurers word that you have no claim in these sorts of accidents.

[Ragingrob]

Blah blah blah stuff to compensate for my small penis blah blah blah

In some circumstances, if they issued a comprehensive policy, they would have to pay out regardless of your license status or where you were (including on the road).

Ok mate.... Well done. Do you feel better now? I like the fact that my statement is a valid one, and has been all along.

Jafa the only worry I'd have about being on the wrong license, is surely can't they turn around and say "You were riding outside of your license conditions, therefore you shouldn't even be on a public road, therefore you shouldn't have been able to be hit.". I don't know if they can say this for a fact, but it's a point they would have.

If someone fails to give way to a 13yr old driving a car and hits them, surely the 13yr old ain't gonna be granted all costs?!?!

I thought it was "if you don't have a license, then you aint insured"?

EDIT : :lol: And Oscar, still with the name calling huh? Grow up mate :baby:

[jamiey]

Perhaps like life insurance. U can take out life insurance and get cheaper cover by saying you a) don't smoke, b) don't do any 'extreme sports' etc etc etc. If you die of lung cancer or a freak bungee accident then of course your insurance would be invalid. If however you die in say a general RTA or something then the post mortem isn't gonna open your lungs see if smoking caused it, or check with all your friends see if u'd been skydiving lately.

So my point is er........

er.........

er??????????

Oh yes, if you had a claim that clearly wasn't your fault they probably not gonna want a copy of your license anyway, but if they do your fu**ed and they would never pay out

[Ragingrob]

Perhaps like life insurance. U can take out life insurance and get cheaper cover by saying you a) don't smoke, b) don't do any 'extreme sports' etc etc etc. If you die of lung cancer or a freak bungee accident then of course your insurance would be invalid. If however you die in say a general RTA or something then the post mortem isn't gonna open your lungs see if smoking caused it, or check with all your friends see if u'd been skydiving lately.

So my point is er........

er.........

er??????????

Oh yes, if you had a claim that clearly wasn't your fault they probably not gonna want a copy of your license anyway, but if they do your fu**ed and they would never pay out

Uh oh... Oscar's gonna start calling you a toilet cleaner now cause ya don't understand the deep entwining structure of the insurance system.

But yip I agree with your general statement :yes:

:lol:

[Matt_TG]

I know a little bit about insurance and have letters after my name to prove it but there's no way I'm adding too much more to the debate apart to say whilst every situation is different and depending on circumstances a claim may or may not be paid, it's not the brightest idea to try and get cover (and pay for it) for something that's not legal.

Any contract has to have an element of legality, regardless as to who's at fault bla bla when a loss occurs it's one of the essential parts of a contract. Why pay extra for comprehensive if you're not likely to get the benefit of it?

[Creeping Death]

I'd have to agree with Ragingrobs original statement,riding outside your licence conditions is not only illegal but should instantly nullify your insurance.Pretty black and white I reckon.

Situation 1:If I'm on a learners licence,own a let's say an R1,have full comp insurance,my mate turns up at my place and asks to take it for a blat around the block,writes it off down the street...would I be covered?My belief is that my friends name must be on the "others using vehicle"part of the insurance contract.

Situation 2:Still on a learners,I decide to go for a ride down the local shopping mall,park my,lets say MVAgustaF4 up,go inside,have a feed of sushi and a slushy from Wendy's,return to find my machine has disappeared.Would I still be covered?Surely the Insurer would want to know how it got there in the first place?After all..."Fire and Theft" to me means just that.

Tiz been interesting reading both Ragingrob and Oscars posts but I do remember another thread very similar to this only a few weeks back and even back then I agreed with RR.

PS...No...I'm not a toilet cleaner...I prefer sitting on 'em,not cleaning 'em!:msn-wink:

[Oscar]

Ok mate.... Well done. Do you feel better now? I like the fact that my statement is a valid one, and has been all along.

Jafa the only worry I'd have about being on the wrong license, is surely can't they turn around and say "You were riding outside of your license conditions, therefore you shouldn't even be on a public road, therefore you shouldn't have been able to be hit.". I don't know if they can say this for a fact, but it's a point they would have.

If someone fails to give way to a 13yr old driving a car and hits them, surely the 13yr old ain't gonna be granted all costs?!?!

I thought it was "if you don't have a license, then you aint insured"?

EDIT : :lol: And Oscar, still with the name calling huh? Grow up mate :baby:

You still don't get it, do you?
It ain't that black and white.
You should work for a claims dept. - "I'm sorry Sir, you were doing 103km/h at the time of the accident (riding outside the terms of your license), we'll have to decline..."

As for name calling, you started it, Dickwad.

[Oscar]

I'd have to agree with Ragingrobs original statement,riding outside your licence conditions is not only illegal but should instantly nullify your insurance.Pretty black and white I reckon.

Situation 1:If I'm on a learners licence,own a let's say an R1,have full comp insurance,my mate turns up at my place and asks to take it for a blat around the block,writes it off down the street...would I be covered?My belief is that my friends name must be on the "others using vehicle"part of the insurance contract.

Situation 2:Still on a learners,I decide to go for a ride down the local shopping mall,park my,lets say MVAgustaF4 up,go inside,have a feed of sushi and a slushy from Wendy's,return to find my machine has disappeared.Would I still be covered?Surely the Insurer would want to know how it got there in the first place?After all..."Fire and Theft" to me means just that.

Tiz been interesting reading both Ragingrob and Oscars posts but I do remember another thread very similar to this only a few weeks back and even back then I agreed with RR.

PS...No...I'm not a toilet cleaner...I prefer sitting on 'em,not cleaning 'em!:msn-wink:

As I said before - if you'd like to just roll over for the insurer, fine.

But I'm saying that in a lot of cases, consumer legislation overrides insurance contracts. If you'd like to read RR's original post again, it's a very ambiguous swipe at insurers - they'll take your money knowing they won't have to pay. There is legal precedent to say that:

1. insurers can't issue cover and take a premium, knowing they will never have to pay.

2. Insurers can't issue cover and then exclude it completely under warranty/policy exclusion.


Situation 1 - Depends on how the accident happened. At 30km/h, flattened by a drunk driving running a red? Black & white?

Situation 2 - This goes to what insurers call "Proximate Cause" How is your license related to the theft? You could argue that both ways - it certainly isn't cut and dried according to the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977. There are a couple of similar cases where insurers imposed underage excesses on stolen vehicles, citing lifestyle as a contributing factor (this one varies by insurer, it is worth asking the question - "Does the underage excess apply to theft?).

[Ragingrob]

You still don't get it, do you?
It ain't that black and white.
You should work for a claims dept. - "I'm sorry Sir, you were doing 103km/h at the time of the accident (riding outside the terms of your license), we'll have to decline..."

As for name calling, you started it, Dickwad.

:lol: You're priceless mate. I'm not saying it's black and white, I said a general statement and included the entire spectrum of light with it.

I said one thing, apologized for taking your comment the wrong way, and ever since have got further abuse from you. I don't feel the need to further my abuse at you, because you're making yourself look bad enough.

Riding when you shouldn't be on a public road is a bit worse than riding at 103km/h. Anyway I thought you'd know that speedos can be up to 10% out, and then add on the error of a radar, since you're so smart and all.

It's funny how you took my one statement, and now apparently you know my entire view on the topic and have all these quotes which apparently are my thoughts.

If you quote me again, I have nothing more to say. I've made myself clearly understood. Apparently I've got toilets to clean anyway.

[Forest]

You still don't get it, do you?
It ain't that black and white.
You should work for a claims dept. - "I'm sorry Sir, you were doing 103km/h at the time of the accident (riding outside the terms of your license), we'll have to decline..."

As for name calling, you started it, Dickwad.

I've know of a claim that was denied for an accident at 130km/h.

[vgcspares]

Was driving with an ex-cop this morning on the way to pick up a stolen & recovered bike. Idle chit chat hit on this topic and he couldn't understand that we might pay out even when a license was suspended - specifically for lots of speeding rather than "dangerous" - we will, primarilly because the Third Party was at fault and we stand to collect from them.
In the case of an At Fault accident we might still pay out depending on circumstances, ie: what they did wrong.
As for Speeding we largely ignore it.
Neeless to say the ex-cop was non-plussed at how easy-going insurers are (and so am I a lot of the time).