Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

rumour regarding provisional driver, accident, and insurance

Options
  • 10-11-2009 9:35pm
    #1
    aloevera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 207 ✭✭


    hey,

    my friend was telling me today that he someone told him that apparently if you are a provisional license holder, have your own car, and insurance and have an accident that you are not insured to claim if a fully licensed driver isn't in the car at the time of the accident.


    fact or big myth?

    im thinking myth, i mean it couldn't be possible, could it?!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,996 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    big myth!


  • Options
    #3
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    A myth.....until it changed to a Learners permit instead of a provisional licence.

    Your insurance policy will say on it, and if not on it in the fine print, that the person is insured if they hold or ever have held a licence. Learners permit is not a licence.

    So at present AGS is awaiting a decision by the DPP as to whether a prosecution could be gained for no insurance. Its all a bit hairy fairy to me but thats the stance at the moment.


  • Options
    #4
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    ....mmm, don't think it'll hold water, imho. Even if DPP decides to prosecute, it'll likely fail. It's not unlikely that a court would hold that a person can substitute 'permit' for 'licence' as the net effect is the same: a permission to (whatever). The ambiguity will go in a defendant's favour, in a court.

    One reason is that the similar legal status of expired licence holders being prosecuted for 'no insurance' has already been ruled on by the courts, and found that where a Certificate is issued under the RTA, and it being mandatory, that the ins co must honour cover, and that the RTA requirement is met, and so no prosecution would succeed.

    .....must find that reference again, it keeps coming up........

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #5
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    nice guy always wrote: »
    A myth.....until it changed to a Learners permit instead of a provisional licence.

    Your insurance policy will say on it, and if not on it in the fine print, that the person is insured if they hold or ever have held a licence. Learners permit is not a licence.

    So at present AGS is awaiting a decision by the DPP as to whether a prosecution could be gained for no insurance. Its all a bit hairy fairy to me but thats the stance at the moment.

    Breach of the policy conditions is not a ground for refusing to pay an injured third party. All that is required of a driver is that there is a policy of insurance such that any injured third party can be compensated thereunder. The difficulty for the permit driver is that the insurance company can sue him personally nfor the return of the money paid out to the third party.


  • Options
    #6
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Jo King wrote: »
    Breach of the policy conditions is not a ground for refusing to pay an injured third party. All that is required of a driver is that there is a policy of insurance such that any injured third party can be compensated thereunder. The difficulty for the permit driver is that the insurance company can sue him personally nfor the return of the money paid out to the third party.

    ...correct. Why is why I don't think an (attempted) prosecution for no insurance will succeed here.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    ball
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭ball


    If you're with Quinn Direct, you'll probably be told different


  • Options
    #8
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    ball wrote: »
    If you're with Quinn Direct, you'll probably be told different

    ..Quinn's can say what they like: in court, they'll be made to follow the rules just like anyone else.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #9
    Alanstrainor
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 23,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    Just to note, there are no longer any "provisional licenses" in use at present, the very last of them would have expired last month. So there are only "learner permits" out there.


  • Options
    #10
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Jo King wrote: »
    Breach of the policy conditions is not a ground for refusing to pay an injured third party. All that is required of a driver is that there is a policy of insurance such that any injured third party can be compensated thereunder. The difficulty for the permit driver is that the insurance company can sue him personally nfor the return of the money paid out to the third party.
    Indeed. They can sue away but they will still have to pay out any third party claims.
    That is why any section 56 prosecution would be doomed to failure.

    I am surprised that the DPP would even consider such a prosecution.


  • Options
    #11
    netwhizkid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,558 ✭✭✭netwhizkid


    ball wrote: »
    If you're with Quinn Direct...

    You may aswell have no insurance at all, handy for Gada checkpoints etc. try making a claim and you have a better chance of getting money of Nama to fund exploration for life on planet mars.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    nice guy always wrote: »
    A myth.....until it changed to a Learners permit instead of a provisional licence.

    Your insurance policy will say on it, and if not on it in the fine print, that the person is insured if they hold or ever have held a licence. Learners permit is not a licence.

    So at present AGS is awaiting a decision by the DPP as to whether a prosecution could be gained for no insurance. Its all a bit hairy fairy to me but thats the stance at the moment.

    But if thats the case then even if you have a learner permit and are driving with a qualified driver in the car then you still wouldnt have a licence and would always be outside the terms of the insurance???

    So if you have a permit then having a qualified driver in the car does not turn it into a licence and as such if you apply the logic above should AGS not be prosecuting all drivers with learner permits for having no insurance as none of them have "licences" accompanied or not?


  • Options
    #13
    Hooch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    tin79 wrote: »
    But if thats the case then even if you have a learner permit and are driving with a qualified driver in the car then you still wouldnt have a licence and would always be outside the terms of the insurance???

    So if you have a permit then having a qualified driver in the car does not turn it into a licence and as such if you apply the logic above should AGS not be prosecuting all drivers with learner permits for having no insurance as none of them have "licences" accompanied or not?

    1- Hense the request to those that know "best"

    2- Logic.....this is Ireland you know

    3- Never said I agreed with it lads.....just telling you what I know:)


  • Options
    #14
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    nice guy always wrote: »

    2- Logic.....this is Ireland you know

    Cant argue with that :D

    Will be interesting to see what happens


  • Options
    #15
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    tin79 wrote: »
    But if thats the case then even if you have a learner permit and are driving with a qualified driver in the car then you still wouldnt have a licence and would always be outside the terms of the insurance???

    So if you have a permit then having a qualified driver in the car does not turn it into a licence and as such if you apply the logic above should AGS not be prosecuting all drivers with learner permits for having no insurance as none of them have "licences" accompanied or not?

    Even if the driver is outside the terms of the insurance the insurer is obliged to pay third parties. A section 56 prosecution should nor even be considered when there is a valid policy in force on the vehicle. An insurance policy will be construed contra proferentum and the insurer will not be allowed to claim that a permit is different from a licence. They ask questions on the proposal for about the licence or lack of before they issue the policy.


  • Options
    #16
    The Nutty M
    Registered Users Posts: 904 ✭✭✭The Nutty M


    netwhizkid wrote: »
    You may aswell have no insurance at all, handy for Gada checkpoints etc. try making a claim and you have a better chance of getting money of Nama to fund exploration for life on planet mars.

    Had an accident last june,came off a motorbike and broke my back,was insured with Q D.Had the same opinion as you Netwhiz about them,but it was completly wrong,17days after the accident I had the cheque in my hand.
    On the op's post,I wish they brought in that and prosecute any learner without a qualified driver with them for having no insurance,be they have an accident or get stopped at a check point.In my opinion,they are breaking the law and should be dealt with as such.


  • Options
    #17
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,960 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    Jo King wrote: »
    Even if the driver is outside the terms of the insurance the insurer is obliged to pay third parties
    Precisely!

    Otherwise where would it end?

    ........Someone on a B with a vehicle GVW of 3,501 kgs could be deemed to be driving outside the terms of their licence!!


  • Options
    #18
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,960 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    The Nutty M wrote: »
    In my opinion,they are breaking the law and should be dealt with as such.
    ....and any full licence holder who causes an accident because they have exceeded the speed limit should be dealt with likewise. We shouldn't be picking and choosing who we prosecute!


  • Options
    #19
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    ....and any full licence holder who causes an accident because they have exceeded the speed limit should be dealt with likewise. We shouldn't be picking and choosing who we prosecute!

    speeding = legal matter
    car accident = civil matter

    you can be prosecuted for speeding and still not be held liable for the accident

    if someone is speeding they should indeed be prosecuted by the gardai be it a fine or points or whatever

    if someone is speeding and crashes into someone who just pulled out from a side road in front of them it is still the person who pulled out who is at fault

    i havnt worked in the industry for a few years now so if something has changed let me know

    i have seen claims being refused because there was no fully licenced driver in the car it didnt happen often but i have seen it done

    at the very least the insurance company will be paying for damge to the third parties car if you are at fault under 'insurer concerned' rules. i would be very very suprised if the insurance companies did not use the change in provisional licence to learners permit to clamp down in their t+c's about people driving without a licenced driver
    Even if the driver is outside the terms of the insurance the insurer is obliged to pay third parties

    also thats not exactly true there are cases were someone holds an insurance policy breaks the rules and the insurance company can refuse to pay any damages but in general you are right


  • Options
    #20
    wayne0308
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭wayne0308


    I've been reading through this post, this is fairly shocking for me :eek:

    I'm on a learner permit and insured in my own name on a VW Polo 1.0L. When I applied for the policy, one of the questions was "Do you hold a full license of a learners permit?" and I told her I held a learner permit and got a quote from her which I agreed to.

    From reading through the list of posts it's unclear (to me, head not working today :)) what this situation means for me.

    Does this mean that even though my policy is in my name and I own the car, I'm still not covered?

    I understand that the company has to pay for all third party costs anyway, but if I had a tip (god forbid) will they sue me for their costs?

    If this is true, I'd have no choice but ring up and cancel my policy?


  • Options
    #21
    R.O.R
    Registered Users Posts: 12,678 ✭✭✭✭R.O.R


    wayne0308 wrote: »
    If this is true, I'd have no choice but ring up and cancel my policy?

    Or don't break the law and only drive when you have a fully licenced driver beside you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    ball
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭ball


    wayne0308 wrote: »
    I've been reading through this post, this is fairly shocking for me :eek:

    I'm on a learner permit and insured in my own name on a VW Polo 1.0L. When I applied for the policy, one of the questions was "Do you hold a full license of a learners permit?" and I told her I held a learner permit and got a quote from her which I agreed to.

    From reading through the list of posts it's unclear (to me, head not working today :)) what this situation means for me.

    Does this mean that even though my policy is in my name and I own the car, I'm still not covered?

    I understand that the company has to pay for all third party costs anyway, but if I had a tip (god forbid) will they sue me for their costs?

    If this is true, I'd have no choice but ring up and cancel my policy?

    Wayne, you are still fully covered. Even if you don't have a fully licensed driver with you


  • Options
    #23
    wayne0308
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭wayne0308


    R.O.R wrote: »
    Or don't break the law and only drive when you have a fully licenced driver beside you?

    I always do. Are you saying that if I'm always accompanied, then I am covered? and this difference between having learners permit and a provisional license (discussed above) doesn't matter?

    The difference being (if I read correctly from above) that a learners permit isn't a license from the viewpoint of the insurance company.

    If this is the case, then I'm okay so.


  • Options
    #24
    R.O.R
    Registered Users Posts: 12,678 ✭✭✭✭R.O.R


    wayne0308 wrote: »
    I always do, so are you saying that if I'm always accompanied, then I am covered? and this difference between having learners permit and a provisional license (discussed above) doesn't matter?

    If you are always accompanied, and your policy is based on the fact you are on a learner permit, I don't see any reason for you not to continue learning to drive until you pass your test.


  • Options
    #25
    snowman707
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,279 ✭✭✭snowman707


    Just to put my own mind at ease after reading various posts on this forum, I rang my broker & they confirmed that my son, both on his own car & as a named driver on my jeep(different insurance co.) in the event of an accident would be covered.


  • Options
    #26
    wayne0308
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭wayne0308


    R.O.R wrote: »
    If you are always accompanied, and your policy is based on the fact you are on a learner permit, I don't see any reason for you not to continue learning to drive until you pass your test.
    Just to put my own mind at ease after reading various posts on this forum, I rang my broker & they confirmed that my son, both on his own car & as a named driver on my jeep(different insurance co.) in the event of an accident would be covered.

    Ah excellent, thank you for that. I'll ring mine this evening when I get home aswell.

    I was in a bit of a panic there, as I thought that my policy was now useless :o and I'd have to cancel, which would have cost a fair bit I think as I'd have to pay off my cancellation fee and get put as a named drive on one of my parents insurance.

    The reason why I went on my own insurance is that I wanted to get a start on generating my no-claims bonus as I'm 25 years old, so hopefully I can continue doing so...

    Thanks for your help again guys, I can relax now.


Advertisement