Motorcycle insurance query

KamiKazi

Hi guys,

Just looking for your opinions on the matter of motorcycle licenses and insurance as noone I've asked has been able to give a straight answer.

Basically, when you have a provisional license the law states that you must have a bike no more powerful than 33bhp (or the equivalent kW rating). My query is if a person were to make a claim while on ignoring this rule (i.e. being on a more powerful bike) would that be enough for the insurance company to be able to recoup the costs of the claim from the rider?

As far as I can see once the license is in date with no infractions preventing you from being on the road, it is still a valid license. Riding a bike more powerful than 33bhp would be only considered an infraction on the license which obviously will land you in trouble with the Gardai should they have your examined, but is it anything that the insurance company should be concerned about? In my opinion it's in the same vein as a car driver with a learner permit / provisional driver driving without a fully licensed driver present. Here's a post from this forum stating that even with an expired license your insurance would most likely pay out

The usual phrasing is:

"Must hold a license or, having held a license are not barred from holding such a license"

Basically, your insurance is not invalidated by an expired license.

And here's a post from the Motors forum in the case of an unaccompanied learner driving making a claim whilst driving without a fully licensed driver present, general consensus seems to be the same as this posters opinion:

I've never heard of a situation where by a claim hasn't been paid out as a result of someone driving unaccompanied when they were not at fault. Leave it to the insurance companies to sort out.

So I guess my question is basically is it a large enough offence to be seen as a "get out clause" by the insurance companies or is it merely a driving offence that should only be of concern to the Gardai? Any opinions appreciated

Note: I'm not looking for legal advice, merely the opinions of people more in the know of legal matters than myself.

Reloc8

If you get insurance on a bike which you're not licensed to drive, the insurer will remain liable presuming that you make full disclosure of your licenced status.

If you falsely state you are not on a provisional, then that would give grounds to invalidate the insurance.

All policies will generally include a right not to cover where the vehicle is used in a manner contrary to law...as noted anecdotally this rarely is exercised for what are considered relatively less serious matters, but you can't take that as a guarantee.

Our man in Havana

The insurance company cannot welch on it's liability to the 3rd party regardless of the conduct of the insured. The insurance company can recover its losses from the insured afterwards but they must pay any 3rd party claims.

Victor

If I have 11 D 1234 which is a small engined moped and this is the basis of my insurance policy, but I am riding 11 D 9876 which has an engine large than many cars, surely the vehicle isn't covered.

Is the insurance company's liability to third parties associated with the driver or the vehicle?

There is of course a third option of telling the insurance company I have a moped and it is insured as such, when its actually the large motorbike.

Hooch

I would believe you are not insured if you state your licence covers you to insurance company. Be aware Insurance companied have acces to NVF so will know Kw rating of the bike.

Circuit case recently for a personal injury accident where someone on a bike was hit by a rigid truck. The driver had a provisional licence for the rigid and was un accompanied. The Rigid was also deemed to be dangerously defective. Due to the combination of these the insurance company refused to cover the driver saying he nulled his policy by making false decleration in regards his licence and the roadworthyness of the vehicle.

I believe the civil case is due in High court soon.......but the applicants Barrister reckons that the Insurance company will win.

Edit: Just to add......insurance companies will try anything to get out of a personal injury claim. And if your at fault by modifying your bike then you'll be persued civilly by the company.

Thick Tights

The insurance company issued a policy. They can't use the fact that the driver was unlicensed, or the mechanical condition of the vehicle, or misrepresentations made by the insured to them prior to issuing the policy to avoid paying the injured third party. they can sue their own insured to recover the payout.
S76 1 e RTA 1961
( e ) the insurer or guarantor shall not, as a ground for refusing payment of moneys to the claimant or as a defence to proceedings by the claimant, rely on or plead any invalidity of the policy or guarantee arising from any fraud or any misrepresentation or false statement (whether fraudulent or innocent) to which the claimant was not a party or privy and which, if constituting a misdemeanour under this Part of this Act, was not the subject of a prosecution and conviction under the relevant section of this Act.

S.I. No. 321/1987
These Regulations amend the First Schedule to the Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations, 1962 [ S.I. No. 14 of 1962 ] to prevent insurers from refusing or reducing a claim by a third party victim of an accident where the driver of an insured vehicle did not have the consent of a named person or the driver did not hold a valid driver's licence or, where appropriate, a public service vehicle licence. The effect of this will be to transfer liability for relevant compensation claims from the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) to motor insurers

Reloc8

Sorry that's correct of course - the injured party will be covered - but the insurer can come back against its insured for any monies paid out.

Our man in Havana

Which is the point were making.

Loads of the high horse brigade over on motors always trot out the whole, "your not covered if someone gets hurt". Well of course the injured party will get paid out, just the insurance will sue the insured for the money back.

Would it be enough to defeat a no insurance charge?

Reloc8

The no insurance offence (s. 56) is to drive MPV in circumstances where no insurer would be liable to a third party so yep.

Jo King

Reloc8 wrote: »

The no insurance offence (s. 56) is to drive MPV in circumstances where no insurer would be liable to a third party so yep.

You will find that some guards will charge people with section 56 and some judges will convict. Some guards will not charge and some judges will not convict. Needs a decision of the higher courts to put it beyond doubt.