Thoughts?

[ynot slow]

The crux is the bike is insured for the rider,you can be sole rider or any rider so how can they change that from full to 3rd party.My policy is for me as named rider but can be changed to any "licensed" person,they were very quick to say the rider must have the relevant license for the bike,i.e not learner,which I understood.

Same as my kids cars are insured via their mum,but the policy states the kids drive it 75%(while they were at home)and to 90%while at uni,wonder what would happen should their mum lose her license in the scenario as this thread.

What would happen if you had 3rd party cover and this scenario happened,tell you no insurance.

When I was disqualified my policy never changed,and I had a work license,but dad used my car at the time.

[kwaka_crasher]

If you look closely I was commenting on a earlier comment from Mully.

I already commented on cowboyz question.

Ah yes. Sorry - I got a little confused as to whom was replying to whom during the multi-quote process and considered your post to be in direct response to the issue cowboyz faces. My bad.

However, I also disagree that a WoF or current vehicle license is material - it isn't - it hasn't contributed if the vehicle is actually roadworthy.

Also, having current evidence of inspection (WoF) but with a WoF defect present (if a contributing factor to a crash) is material and you could be declined cover on that basis.

In short, the status of your WoF & vehicle license is largely irrelevant.

(BTW this is information I have had confirmed from several loss adjusters)

[kwaka_crasher]

They can refuse to pay out if you have no WOF (as the vehicle might be faulty), but they can't refuse to pay out if you have no vehicle licence.

No. They can only refuse to pay out if the specific fault preventing it obtaining a WoF was a contributing factor and they can do that regardless of whether you have a current WoF or not. That is to say if you have a current WoF and no indicators, they could refuse to pay out if someone that would have been required to GIVE WAY hits you because you didn't indicate because it is reasonable to assume you should have known of the contributing fault.

[Mully]

No. They can only refuse to pay out if the specific fault preventing it obtaining a WoF was a contributing factor and they can do that regardless of whether you have a current WoF or not.

Good to know. Thanks for the clarification (not that I intend to use it, but still)

Back on topic:

Cowboyz, this gardening company are clearly dicks. Why don't you just get a new gardener? Or, you could ask the igardening ombudsman if they are allowed to unilaterally change the policy mid-term (especially if they are charging you the same premium).

[R-Soul]

Exactly what type of lawyer?

A South African lawyer - although insurance law is based largely in British commercial law- almost the same as NZ.
My main work is in patent law though...

[R-Soul]

Exactly what type of lawyer?

Apologies - Duly noted and corrected. Too much thread swapping...

[R-Soul]

What I am objecting to is *I* am not insured. My *bike* is. The fact that I dont have a licence is so not the point! The bike should remain fully insured.

Well this is the crux of the matter isn't it? It will depend largely in what your specific contract says. If depends whether they have insured the bike alone, or the rider or the bike and rider combo. What does it say?

In addition, does it SAY that the insurers wll have the right to halt teh contract at any time regardless of the changes in circumstance?
If it does, your'e fooked.

Does it say that they will insure the bike and rider combo as long as you have a license (or as long as circumstances "material to the contract" do not change)? If it does- you're probably fooked.

If they have insured the bike alone for a specific period of time, for all (legal) riders with no option for them to bail at will, then they are probably in the wrong. Contracts are usually self explanatory that way (if you bother to read them).

[Coldrider]

Generally your risk profile at proposal time is part of the contract.
You would gain nothing by changing insurance companies at renewal time, these circumstances are 'material' for any other insurance company and would be included as specific questions.