Insurance and licences

[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 : And Oscar, still with the name calling huh? Grow up mate

[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

[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!

[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 : And Oscar, still with the name calling huh? Grow up mate

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!

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.

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).