Statutory motor insurance wording

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you are missing a word in the second sentence. It agrees with the first. Assuming you meant to say "would not cause" then you are correct. An insurance policy taken out while a licence is expired is still valid. The same applies if the licence expires while the policy is in effect. you still meet the "holds a licence or has held a licence" condition. From memory you have up to 10 years after a licence expires to renew the licence. I remember a government minister who was stopped with a licence nearly 10 years out of date and no action taken.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Special Circumstances

Not sure if I'm one of the "high horsers" (way to shoot the messenger fred!) but this is the wording of some new policies:

These general exceptions apply to all
sections of this policy.
We will not provide cover for any of the
following.
1. Any accident, injury, loss, damage or
liability if the vehicle is being driven by
or used for a purpose not described in
the certificate of insurance.
2. We will not provide cover if the insured
person is entitled to claim or is covered
under any other policy.
3. We will not cover the driver unless;
a they hold a valid licence to drive the
vehicle; and
b they meet the conditions and any
limits of the driving licence.

So, as fred said in another thread - is this an attempt to subvert the Road Traffic Act 1961?

Special Circumstances

And for bonus points, the AXA example

AXA example:
General exceptions
1 This policy does not apply when your car:
– is being driven by you and you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence, are disqualified from driving or getting a licence;

No licence = no cover as the insurance industry posters say?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Special Circumstances

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not what the insurance industry guys say at all!

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're reading that wrong. No licence and you've no cover

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

This policy does not apply when ...........

And the next line reads as one sentence. BOTH scenarios are excluded

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I'm finally done with you. Getting tiresome listening to the same sad attempt at satire over and over again. Did I mention over and over again?

coylemj

It appears that over the years insurance companies attempt to include new conditions that are not enforceable such as that the car has to have a valid NCT certificate and I saw a motor policy once which said that the tax disc must be up date.

The only enduring condition I'm aware of and which appears on every cert. I've ever seen is the one quoted by the OP above - that the person driving the car either has a licence or (having held one in the past) is not currently disqualified.

Special Circumstances

coylemj wrote: »

It appears that over the years insurance companies attempt to include new conditions that are not enforceable such as that the car has to have a valid NCT certificate and I saw a motor policy once which said that the tax disc must be up date.

The only enduring condition I'm aware of and which appears on every cert. I've ever seen is the one quoted by the OP above - that the person driving the car either has a licence or (having held one in the past) is not currently disqualified.

Is it incompetence or malice that is leading to these terms appearing? A misunderstanding of the laws or an attempt to pull the wool over gullible customers eyes?

Or are these remixed T&Cs kosher if you've agreed to them?

Glass fused light

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The "has held and not disqualified" term covers drivers
comprehensive claims made by them.
for third party against them, the insurance still has to pay out ((< I think this covers the payout were drunk, druged and in a unroad worthy, non ncted car but paid the premium and held a licence or drivers permit ))



The "has held and not disqualified" term covered an older family member who was in a serious crash and had to produce their documents, the insurance co still paid out for the value of the car and of course paid the third party claim. From memory i think that the renewal date was after the issue date of the policy, plus I don't think he had crossed over to where the doctor had to provide a cert, so any (dis)qualification never came into play.

The driver could have been prosecuted for having not renewed his licence but not for no insurance. The insurance company handler said that it was not unusual for a driver to have accidents and then discover that the licence renewal date was a while back.

Not sure what the story would be if the driver's licence was out by a number of years. Insurance is based on utmost good faith dealings so if the driver has a licence and was not disqualified and did not intend to defraud the insurance company they may not cover the comprehensive bit but as the third party is the looser I would think that having held a licence would still result in an enforceable contract.

But as the third party insurance is to compensate others who were harmed the insurance company would still end up paying up, the insurance company could sue the driver to recover the payout

Special Circumstances

Glass fused light wrote: »

The "has held and not disqualified" term covers drivers
comprehensive claims made by them.
for third party against them, the insurance still has to pay out ((< I think this covers the payout were drunk, druged and in a unroad worthy, non ncted car but paid the premium and held a licence or drivers permit ))

Again, this is in direct contradiction with what the insurance reps are telling people in the insurance forum.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The 'holds a licence, or having held a licence and is not disqualified....' etc. is taken from the insurance certificate, which only refers to the 3rd party aspect of your cover. The policy document and schedule is what you should consult. If you have declared you have a full current licence when you don't, there's the problem

As for not flagging these changes, they're not new. They will have been notified to you in your policy documents or advised to you in your renewal terms if it was changed from the original conditions

Special Circumstances

Glass fused light wrote: »

Not sure what the story would be if the driver's licence was out by a number of years. Insurance is based on utmost good faith dealings so if the driver has a licence and was not disqualified and did not intend to defraud the insurance company they may not cover the comprehensive bit but as the third party is the looser I would think that having held a licence would still result in an enforceable contract.

But as the third party insurance is to compensate others who were harmed the insurance company would still end up paying up, the insurance company could sue the driver to recover the payout

Again, a bonus question for any of our legal eagles here - does anyone recall an insurer EVER chasing down a customer to recover a payout where a licence had lapsed purely through forgetfulness and there was no obstacle to getting a replacement licence?

coylemj

But surely the fact that your driving licence was expired when you renewed your policy is not a 'material fact' i.e. it has no bearing whatsoever on the risk of there being a future claim on the policy?

When you pass the driving test, you are effectively permitted to drive until you reach the age of 70 without any checks on the state of your health or your driving ability though obviously there is the (purely clerical) task of renewing the paperwork every 10 years or so. I can't see that the fact that the licence had expired could have any material bearing on a motor policy.

Glass fused light

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is it incompetence or malice that is leading to these terms appearing? A misunderstanding of the laws or an attempt to pull the wool over gullible customers eyes?

Or are these remixed T&Cs kosher if you've agreed to them?

I think some of it is mainly a stupid attempt at Simple English and the person translating the legal terms into poorly worded "easy to read" web pages, and insurance documents have better wording.

However if you did agree to the terms and went for comprehensive cover the option to indemnify yourself against your personal insurable loss you could be held to the extra conditions.

Imo if the primary argument is that the only reason that you went for the third party is to fulfil your legal obligation of indemnify yourself against someone else's insurable loss then the need for a tax disk or nct should not stand as material to the contract. I think the courts would see this as the insurance company is trying to void it's obligation of specific preformance.

Plus people enter into insurance contracts by phone etc do so without reading the terms and conditions so can rely on good faith contracting too. I had to request a physical copy of the contract (terms and conditions) after my renewal date as they only sent the cert.

Special Circumstances

coylemj wrote: »

But surely the fact that your driving licence was expired when you renewed your policy is not a 'material fact' i.e. it has no bearing whatsoever on the risk of there being a future claim on the policy?

When you pass the driving test, you are effectively permitted to drive until you reach the age of 70 without any checks on the state of your health or your driving ability though obviously there is the (purely clerical) task of renewing the paperwork every 10 years or so. I can't see that the fact that the licence had expired could have any material bearing on a motor policy.

They did not like that ONE BIT when I suggested it in the insurance forum!

Rubber stamp, paperwork exercise, bureaucracy that's all it is. Meaningless in terms of risk unless the customer has also lied several times about convictions/bans/medical conditions.

Special Circumstances

Glass fused light wrote: »

I think some of it is mainly a stupid attempt at Simple English and the person translating the legal terms into poorly worded "easy to read" web pages, and insurance documents have better wording.

By insurance documents do you mean the actual document that I copied this mangled gem from

"GENERAL EXCEPTIONS - This policy does not apply when your car:
– is being driven by you and you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence, are disqualified from driving or getting a licence;"

https://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-011016.pdf



From the same document, surely they are being misleading when they say
13 Driving Licence Conditions.
No cover will apply under this policy for any driver who is not meeting the conditions of his/her licence/learner permit. This includes conditions relating to the class of vehicle being driven, the requirement to be accompanied when driving under a learner permit or any other restriction or condition that may apply.


They can't currently just wash their hands of third party just like that can they?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Article 13 (1)(b) of Directive 209/103/EC has been transposed into Irish law somewhere (just can't remember where), and even if it wasn't transposed properly it would still apply under the ECJs ruling in relation to directives and vertical direct effect.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0103

Article 13
Exclusion clauses

1. Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3 shall be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident where that statutory provision or contractual clause excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by:

(a)persons who do not have express or implied authorisation to do so;

(b)persons who do not hold a licence permitting them to drive the vehicle concerned;

(c)persons who are in breach of the statutory technical requirements concerning the condition and safety of the vehicle concerned.

Such exclusions can only apply to any claims by the insured themselves but not a third party.

Special Circumstances

I must say, this is a far more intelligent,logical, balanced and ACCURATE discussion of these matters than the answers given on the insurance forum.


Where a person was
unknowingly driving with an expired licence without any deliberate, calculated misrepresentation or fraud
and had the misfortune to make a "comprehensive claim" for their own loss
and there was no barrier to a new/renewed licence (beyond rocking up to the NDLS with your bank card)

Would the insurer be entitled to CANCEL that person's policy for "misrepresentation" and basically leave them in an awful situation forever when getting quotes, or would they only be entitled to say "tough, no moolah for you, only third parties"?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Seeing that I'm being quoted all over the place here, I'll add the following comments

Only the 3rd party aspect of your cover is Statutory and the RTA provides that no 3rd party can be prejudiced by an insured's policy being defective. The insurer must deal with a loss caused by the insured. This doesn't mean that the insured is in the clear if he has breached his policy conditions, including those relating to his licence, and insurers can seek recovery from the insured. This option is activated on a regular basis. IN NO WAY IS THIS SUBVERTING THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT

With regard to Own Damage, Fire, Theft or any additional loss, Insurers are free to insert any conditions they wish and if they say "no current licence, no cover", that's they way it is. If you don't wish to accept these conditions, move on to another insurer

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It can have a bearing on your driving ability. If you have developed any condition that affects your driving (eyesight, parkinsons, dementia etc), you would need medical clearance to renew your licence. By not renewing your licence, you are not presenting yourself for authorisation, so why should you be free to use the roads with your full insurance intact?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

"GENERAL EXCEPTIONS - This policy does not apply when your car:
– is being driven by you and you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence, are disqualified from driving or getting a licence;"


These words essentially mean the policy doesn't apply where you 1.) Have not got a licence and never have had one (in respect of the category of licence required for the car you're driving) and 2.) You had a licence but it was taken from you by some mechanism of the law.

Once you pass the requirements of training/tests etc. and obtain a licence, you have a valid licence whether the piece of paper representing that licence is "in date" or expired.

The clauses are drafted to fudge the issue because they are drafted by insurance companies and it is in their interests to seek to avoid policies for whatever reason. In all likelihood, they do seek to avoid policies where it transpires that the piece of paper is "expired" but a number of legal principles would say this is incorrect.

Contra proferentem is the first of these which requires ambiguous clauses to be interpreted against the drafter. The unfair terms in consumer contracts legislation bolsters this. The other aspects I think alluded to above would bear on the materiality of the non disclosure of the expiry of your piece of paper.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Seeing that I'm being quoted all over the place here, I'll add the following comments

Only the 3rd party aspect of your cover is Statutory and the RTA provides that no 3rd party can be prejudiced by an insured's policy being defective. The insurer must deal with a loss caused by the insured. This doesn't mean that the insured is in the clear if he has breached his policy conditions, including those relating to his licence, and insurers can seek recovery from the insured. This option is activated on a regular basis. IN NO WAY IS THIS SUBVERTING THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT

With regard to Own Damage, Fire, Theft or any additional loss, Insurers are free to insert any conditions they wish and if they say "no current licence, no cover", that's they way it is. If you don't wish to accept these conditions, move on to another insurer

But surely saying "these exceptions apply to ALL aspects of the policy" is very very misleading. Deliberately so.

Would it not be accurate to say "you will be covered by us but we may seek to recover money from you if you have misrepresented yourself"?


Why smoke and mirrors about it in the insurance forum?

Special Circumstances

hullaballoo wrote: »

"GENERAL EXCEPTIONS - This policy does not apply when your car:
– is being driven by you and you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence, are disqualified from driving or getting a licence;"


These words essentially mean the policy doesn't apply where you 1.) Have not got a licence and never have had one (in respect of the category of licence required for the car you're driving) and 2.) You had a licence but it was taken from you by some mechanism of the law.

Once you pass the requirements of training/tests etc. and obtain a licence, you have a valid licence whether the piece of paper representing that licence is "in date" or expired.

Ah yeah, that's what I presented it as in the insurance FAQs thread but I was contradicted by the industry clique. A great bunch of lads putting stuff to suit their agenda out there as gospel.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

.

Would it not be accurate to say "you will be covered by us but we may seek to recover money from you if you have misrepresented yourself"?

Because if you are 'covered' by the policy, insurers have no right to recover from you.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Because if you are 'covered' by the policy, insurers have no right to recover from you.

So we're back to "you're not covered 3rd party if your licence has expired, your nct is out or tax is out"?

Or is this more shenanigans and "magic meanings" for everyday words in the industry?

Glass fused light

ps disclaimer : I have no legal expertise except to know that if I read something and don't think i understand it or if it's important that i need professional help and pay for a written opinion. 

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Glass fused light wrote: »

The "has held and not disqualified" term covers drivers 
comprehensive claims made by them.
for third party against them,  the insurance still has to pay out ((< I think this covers the payout were drunk, druged and in a unroad worthy, non ncted car but paid the premium and held a licence or drivers permit ))

Again, this is in direct contradiction with what the insurance reps are telling people in the insurance forum.

Originally Posted by Sue Pa Key Pa  
The 'holds a licence, or having held a licence and is not disqualified....' etc. is taken from the insurance certificate, which only refers to the 3rd party aspect of your cover. The policy document and schedule is what you should consult. If you have declared you have a full current licence when youdon't, there's the problem

As for not flagging these changes, they're not new. They will have been notified to you in your policy documents or advised to you in your renewal terms if it was changed from the original conditions

re direct contradiction So what.
I have been told
By a banker that a document they wanted someone to sign, could not be read before signing, and although addressed to them, detailing a list of their personal data was not personal data, banker went to check and apparently confirmed with their central data controllers that it was not personal data.:rolleyes:
By an insurance handler that the person who crashed to me had a valid policy but was not insured :eek: because they had not returned an written statement and  the recorded verbal admission they had on their computer was not sufficient.

But to be fair to Sue Pa Key Pa I think what (s)he is saying, correctly, is that the insurance cover is for 3rd party only.
But if you have entered into a contract with/for an additional cover than the documents could include any condition the insurance co wants.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Where a person was 
unknowingly driving with an expired licence without any deliberate, calculated misrepresentation or fraud
and had the misfortune to make a "comprehensive claim" for their own loss
and there was no barrier to a new/renewed licence (beyond rocking up to the NDLS with your bank card)

Would the insurer be entitled to CANCEL that person's policy for "misrepresentation" and basically leave them in an awful situation forever when getting quotes, or would they only be entitled to say "tough, no moolah for you, only third parties"?

If the condition that the driver agreed to was that something* has to be covered in a "special cover" sent to them by the insurance company 
and it* was not 
then the insurance  company only has to pay out on the 3rd party cover (as per GM228's post they can't contract out of this)
claim breach of contract for the rest and it would be up to the driver to take them to the ombudsman/ court to have a judge determine if the "special cover" obligation was important enough to allow the company to not have to pay out.
* licence / body part  :D etc

Now the word cancelled is an interesting one as most people would see the bundled individual covers as one product 
3 party 
3 party fire
3 party fire & theft
Comprehensive 
And if the insurance co has to pay out I don't think they can cancel part of the bundle as the contract itself would be what they are relying to support not having to pay. 

But the policy holder would have to self declare in detail when buying the next policy.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

But surely saying "these exceptions apply to ALL aspects of the policy" is very very misleading. Deliberately so. 

Would it not be accurate to say "you will be covered by us but we may seek to recover money from you if you have misrepresented yourself"?


Why smoke and mirrors about it in the insurance forum?

Not smoke and mirrors but specific nit picking of words in the contracts eg
Looking at what you said as a contract term 

you will be                            = we have no choice and we must
covered by us                       = under the contract make all payments
but we may                          = but we have a choice 
seek to recover money                    = take you to court to get back the money 
from you.                              = we just paid you 
 if you have                          = by proving to the courts that you
misrepresented                         = did or said something** which led us to an incorrect conclusion 
yourself                                = about you.

something** < pedantic but this could be a big problem as how a question is worded eg
Q Do you have a licence 
A Yes I do ( a fishing one)
Q Do you have a driving licence
A Yes I do ( for an AM class )
 
if the insurance company think a licence is a key part of the contract they should be asking for category and start + end date 

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I would say no. Renewing a driving licence is simply an administrative matter. It has no bearing on your driving ability.

It can have a bearing on your driving ability. If you have developed any condition that affects your driving (eyesight, parkinsons, dementia etc), you would need medical clearance to renew your licence. By not renewing your licence, you are not presenting yourself for authorisation, so why should you be free to use the roads with your full insurance intact?

Nit picking 
renewing or not renewing can have no bearing on your driving ability. 
The developed conditions can have a bearing on driving ability eyesight, parkinsons, dementia etc

The conditions  can also have a bearing on your ability to (not) be disqualified on medical grounds from holding a licence. 

Special Circumstances

Glass fused light wrote: »

ps disclaimer : I have no legal expertise except to know that if I read something and don't think i understand it or if it's important that i need professional help and pay for a written opinion. 


re direct contradiction So what.
I have been told
By a banker that a document they wanted someone to sign, could not be read before signing, and although addressed to them, detailing a list of their personal data was not personal data, banker went to check and apparently confirmed with their central data controllers that it was not personal data.:rolleyes:
By an insurance handler that the person who crashed to me had a valid policy but was not insured :eek: because they had not returned an written statement and  the recorded verbal admission they had on their computer was not sufficient.

But to be fair to Sue Pa Key Pa I think what (s)he is saying, correctly, is that the insurance cover is for 3rd party only.
But if you have entered into a contract with/for an additional cover than the documents could include any condition the insurance co wants.



If the condition that the driver agreed to was that something* has to be covered in a "special cover" sent to them by the insurance company 
and it* was not 
then the insurance  company only has to pay out on the 3rd party cover (as per GM228's post they can't contract out of this)
claim breach of contract for the rest and it would be up to the driver to take them to the ombudsman/ court to have a judge determine if the "special cover" obligation was important enough to allow the company to not have to pay out.
* licence / body part  :D etc

Now the word cancelled is an interesting one as most people would see the bundled individual covers as one product 
3 party 
3 party fire
3 party fire & theft
Comprehensive 
And if the insurance co has to pay out I don't think they can cancel part of the bundle as the contract itself would be what they are relying to support not having to pay. 

But the policy holder would have to self declare in detail when buying the next policy.



Not smoke and mirrors but specific nit picking of words in the contracts eg
Looking at what you said as a contract term 

you will be                            = we have no choice and we must
covered by us                       = under the contract make all payments
but we may                          = but we have a choice 
seek to recover money                    = take you to court to get back the money 
from you.                              = we just paid you 
 if you have                          = by proving to the courts that you
misrepresented                         = did or said something** which led us to an incorrect conclusion 
yourself                                = about you.

something** < pedantic but this could be a big problem as how a question is worded eg
Q Do you have a licence 
A Yes I do ( a fishing one)
Q Do you have a driving licence
A Yes I do ( for an AM class )
 
if the insurance company think a licence is a key part of the contract they should be asking for category and start + end date 




Nit picking 
renewing or not renewing can have no bearing on your driving ability. 
The developed conditions can have a bearing on driving ability eyesight, parkinsons, dementia etc

The conditions  can also have a bearing on your ability to (not) be disqualified on medical grounds from holding a licence. 

That's nice.
I'm not sure doubling down was the best way to proceed on this, you could probably just have left it at "no legal expertise btw lol".

hullaballoo

I think there is a need to clarify a few points and that may assuage some of the contention around the interpretation of these clauses.

The insurance industry has industry-accepted meanings for various formulas of words that the insurers agree upon. One such example is that the words "business interruption" does not include the additional wage costs as a result of whatever caused the loss/claim. The accounting formula they use is turnover less working expenses. "Working expenses" does not cover labour because reasons.

The industry applies these industry-wide meanings to their decisions in relation to cover. Using the example in this thread, that means that they will refuse claims from a driver whose licence is out of date, I presume, and leaving aside the 3rd party cover issue, which has been dealt with.

The insurance companies are making a decision on the basis of their own interpretation of their own policy documents (or contracts). That is fine, what else are they supposed to do? It's business to them and an insurance company that doesn't employ this sort of system will not last long.

Unfortunately, the words in their documents only mean what the insurers say they mean until someone more authoritative disagrees.

The insurers will inform punters of their decisions in a big legal looking letter with "final decision" written upon it. This letter will also tell you that if you are dissatisfied, you go to the Financial Services Ombudsman. The Financial Services Ombudsman is a legislature-created office that has a quasi-judicial function (separation of powers how are ya?) This decision-maker lives in a very special bubble where whatever decision is made is damn near impossible to set aside. The procedure for further challenging a decision of the FSO is to bring something called a "Statutory Appeal" where the whole process is governed by statute (surprise!) and the grounds for appealing are very. Very. Limited.

However, there is an alternative to dealing with insurance companies with whom you are at loggerheads and that is to #lwyrup early doors and seek relief from the Courts based on the ordinary principles of contract and insurance law. It's potentially expensive and potentially risky and, although it might obtain the best outcome, it is not preferable for the vast majority of people who think that going to your solicitor is an expense beyond reason and DIY lawyering is far preferable. It's a lot like DIY brain surgery but we'll leave that discussion for another day.


So, after all that. My point is that as a lawyer who knows the law in this area, my view is that the examples of policy wordings in this thread all mean basically the same thing and that if you have obtained a licence and you haven't had it taken from you by operation of law, such as disqualification, then the policy ought to cover you. As above, though, the practical reality is different if you, like most people, don't have a friendly solicitor at your beck and call.

Carawaystick

have not got a licence

is very woolly language.

Gard: Have you got a licence?
Driver: No, it's at home.

vs

Gard: Have you got a licence?
Driver: Yeah, it's at home

Both true statements by the driver, in the exact same circumstances

Or
I have got a licence. It was a while ago when the co co did all that at the motor tax office. It's expired now

Where the procedure of getting a licence is true in the phrase "got a licence"

Special Circumstances

hullaballoo wrote: »

So, after all that. My point is that as a lawyer who knows the law in this area, my view is that the examples of policy wordings in this thread all mean basically the same thing and that if you have obtained a licence and you haven't had it taken from you by operation of law, such as disqualification, then the policy ought to cover you. As above, though, the practical reality is different if you, like most people, don't have a friendly solicitor at your beck and call.

These general exceptions apply to all
sections of this policy.
We will not provide cover for any of the
following.
1. Any accident, injury, loss, damage or
liability if the vehicle is being driven by
or used for a purpose not described in
the certificate of insurance.
2. We will not provide cover if the insured
person is entitled to claim or is covered
under any other policy.
3. We will not cover the driver unless;
a they hold a valid licence to drive the
vehicle; and
b they meet the conditions and any
limits of the driving licence.

I would agree with the second bolded part in my quoting of your post. But in terms of the wording of the Liberty Insurance document I would say that it is completely at odds with other company's wording.

They are flat out lying as far as I can see. They cannot wash their hands of 3rd party cover over these "catches".
And over something so inconsequential as an expired driving licence where there is no barrier to getting a renewal?
Typical of the random flailing of the motor insurance industry in Ireland at the moment.

hullaballoo

I'm sorry, SC, I cannot tell what you are saying from that post at all?

Special Circumstances

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm sorry, SC, I cannot tell what you are saying from that post at all?

Any part of it in particular?

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

These general exceptions apply to all
sections of this policy.
We will not provide cover for any of the
following.
1. Any accident, injury, loss, damage or
liability if the vehicle is being driven by
or used for a purpose not described in
the certificate of insurance.
2. We will not provide cover if the insured
person is entitled to claim or is covered
under any other policy.
3. We will not cover the driver unless;
a they hold a valid licence to drive the
vehicle; and
b they meet the conditions and any
limits of the driving licence.

This section is a copy and paste of Liberty Insurances Motor policy document. In it I have bolded the parts that I think are completely at odds with the usual "has a licence, or has held and is not disqualified" statement used by many others.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I would agree with the second bolded part in my quoting of your post.

Here I refer to the excerpt from your post, which I quoted and bolded two parts. The second bolded part was
"that if you have obtained a licence and you haven't had it taken from you by operation of law, such as disqualification, then the policy ought to cover you"
I agree with this.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

But in terms of the wording of the Liberty Insurance document I would say that it is completely at odds with other company's wording.

Here I refer to Libertys wording on licence requirements for cover. I understand their requirements to be fundamentally different when it comes to the "has held but not disqualified" part.
In saying this I am disagreeing with the first bolded part from my quote of your post - "the examples of policy wordings in this thread all mean basically the same thing". By disagree I mean that, to me, Libertys wording is fundamentally different to other companies when it comes to the "has held but disqualified" part.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

They are flat out lying as far as I can see. They cannot wash their hands of 3rd party cover over these "catches".

I don't think I can explain this "better" - they say they will not honour ANY type of cover without a full current valid licence. I think this is a LIE, and big one at that.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

And over something so inconsequential as an expired driving licence where there is no barrier to getting a renewal?

Here I wonder - why lie about their obligations and make such a big deal out of a paperwork exercise?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Typical of the random flailing of the motor insurance industry in Ireland at the moment.

A throwaway comment, stemming from different companies adding in all sorts of weird and wonderful clauses that don't seem to make any real sense.

hullaballoo

I don't know how different the Liberty policy wording works out as. I know the meaning is slightly different but the effect seems to me to be the same.

They are saying that they don't cover people who don't meet the conditions/limits of the driving licence but that's the same as saying they don't cover someone who hasn't got a valid licence.

That level of semantics doesn't really matter, though. On the one hand, from the insurers point of view, the slightest deviation from the terms etc. of the policy can be enough for them to refuse cover. On the other hand, as a matter of law, it takes a significant deviation to the extent that the insurer is prejudiced by it in order for the policy to be avoided.

Unfortunately, as per my last post, not everyone who finds themselves with their cover withdrawn is in a position to litigate over it and for many, by the time they decide to do so, they have already gone to the FSO, which makes it nearly impossible to get a different result.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Hullaballoo, I'm more than happy to tease this out with you. Perhaps, between us, we can clarify the situation as I believe we are both kinda agreeing on the major points

Firstly, it is my position that insurance is a contract and contracts have terms and conditions. It is a condition in EVERY motor insurance contract that Insurers can cancel all cover giving X numbers of days (insurers very) notice to the insured. NO REASON has to be given to the insurer and it can even be cancelled ab initio

The statutory nature of the 3rd party cover means that no 3rd party can be prejudiced by a defect in the policyholder's cover and the insurer must meet his obligations in handling and paying the claim. This does not mean the loss is still 'covered' by the policy, it just means the 3rd party is paid and the insurer, in theory, has rights of recovery. Where there is misrepresentation, it is a regular occurrence for the policy to be voided from inception, yet the 3rd party gets paid

As for the own damage/loss side of things, whatever conditions are in the policy can be enforced by either party. I fully agree with you that an insurer would be in a poor position if they tried to refuse a claim if a licence, for example, was lapsed for a few weeks or months with no hindrance to it being renewed. However, if a policyholder has made a declaration that he has a current licence and it is out a substantial amount of time, I feel there could be an issue.

A material fact is one which would influence an insurer to either rate or accept a risk. Does a lapsed licence make a person a riskier driver? Personally, I don't think so. However, if the insurer can give examples from it's records where it was an issue, I think their position could be upheld

Happy to have your thoughts on this

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with you Fred with regard to the criminal aspect. I'm trying to clarify the contractual position and the wording insurers put in their policy documents