Insurance and licences

[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".



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.