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

Crashed into by unaccompanied learner driver

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    dvdman1
    Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    Odyssey 2005 wrote: »
    Some ppl cant/don't read !

    If her insurance is invalid then your insurance company will go through the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland for your costs. If your fully comprehensive they will sort this.
    If your third party you may have to do the phone calling.
    You will be compensated regardless of her insurance status.


  • Options
    #63
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Odyssey 2005 wrote: »
    Some ppl cant/don't read !

    Forgive me for not reading every word but a it's well-known fact that a person's insurance isn't rendered invalid just because they didn't have the L up or especially because they didn't have a passenger in the front seat with them. The only way a person can have a completely invalid insurance is if it wasn't paid or there was some extraordinary misrepresentation on the policy. Otherwise why bother paying at all?! Did that not strike you as odd?

    Nobody reads every word of every post, if something is way off in the premise of your post then you can't blame people for misinterpreting it.

    Again in no scenario here should you make a false statement. If there is something really wrong with the system, then she should complain about it and kick up a fuss, that's how society runs. Not being so dodgy with people you don't even know. Are you getting a bj out of it if you say it? Serious question, at least then I would have a bit more respect for your "predicament".


  • Options
    #64
    Ginger83
    Registered Users Posts: 3,415 ✭✭✭Ginger83


    How did it turn out


  • Options
    #65
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Ginger83 wrote: »
    How did it turn out

    OP is keeping their mind distracted with love island, so no well I imagine....


  • Options
    #66
    dvdman1
    Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    paleoperson wrote: »
    Forgive me for not reading every word but a it's well-known fact that a person's insurance isn't rendered invalid just because they didn't have the L up or especially because they didn't have a passenger in the front seat with them. The only way a person can have a completely invalid insurance is if it wasn't paid or there was some extraordinary misrepresentation on the policy. Otherwise why bother paying at all?! Did that not strike you as odd?

    Nobody reads every word of every post, if something is way off in the premise of your post then you can't blame people for misinterpreting it.

    Again in no scenario here should you make a false statement. If there is something really wrong with the system, then she should complain about it and kick up a fuss, that's how society runs. Not being so dodgy with people you don't even know. Are you getting a bj out of it if you say it? Serious question, at least then I would have a bit more respect for your "predicament".

    In recent times most insurance policys for L drivers have now included lines such as for example:

    Liberty
    "must meet the conditions and any limits of the driving licence"
    Aviva
    "must specifically comply with the requirement to be accompanied at all times by a full driving licence holder while the learner permit holder is driving"

    FBD says it may not pay non injury claims if conditions of licence arent upheld.

    In reality it seems like a huge grey area, technically if a company wanted to invalidate a policy it seems like theycould, but rarely do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,154 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    In recent times most insurance policys for L drivers have now included lines such as for example:

    Liberty
    "must meet the conditions and any limits of the driving licence"
    Aviva
    "must specifically comply with the requirement to be accompanied at all times by a full driving licence holder while the learner permit holder is driving"

    FBD says it may not pay non injury claims if conditions of licence arent upheld.

    In reality it seems like a huge grey area, technically if a company wanted to invalidate a policy it seems like theycould, but rarely do.

    Even if they invalidate the policy they are still responsible for third party claims. they may try and claim that back from the policy holder but they are responsible for paying third party claims in the first instance.


  • Options
    #68
    Vic_08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    In recent times most insurance policys for L drivers have now included lines such as for example:

    Liberty
    "must meet the conditions and any limits of the driving licence"
    Aviva
    "must specifically comply with the requirement to be accompanied at all times by a full driving licence holder while the learner permit holder is driving"

    FBD says it may not pay non injury claims if conditions of licence arent upheld.

    In reality it seems like a huge grey area, technically if a company wanted to invalidate a policy it seems like theycould, but rarely do.

    The correct facts were posted numerous times already in this thread and nothing has changed.

    Third party insurance is mandatory and once a valid policy is held the company cannot refuse to payout on the grounds that the policyholder or named driver is breaking the law or the T&C of the policy.

    They can refuse to payout claims for damage/injury to the policyholder or their car/property in those circumstances but that is irrelevant to anyone putting in a third party claim. They can also rescind a policy and pursue the policyholder for their costs but the third party claim is still valid against the insurer.

    Only if the insurance company has cancelled a policy due to breaking T&C or non-payment prior to a collision happening will they be able to refuse a claim, in that case the injured third party has a valid claim against the MIBI uninsured driver scheme.


  • Options
    #69
    Whocare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭Whocare


    Just renewed my insurance with axa have this on leaflets with insurance documents saying. Any person driving on learners permit must be accompanied at all times by fully licensed driver who has held there license for a least two years. This is the law .No cover will apply for any driver who is not meeting the conditions of there license/learner permit


  • Options
    #70
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    AXA still must process and pay 3rd party claims regardless. They can they sue the policyholder for breach of contract.


  • Options
    #71
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Credit Checker Moose wrote: »
    AXA still must process and pay 3rd party claims regardless. They can they sue the policyholder for breach of contract.

    it doesn't mean the Driver is insured though even so. Not tested in Court as yet afaik


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    I would suspect that any prosecution under S56 would fail. This has already been tested to the highest courts in the land.

    It is the wording on the certificate of insurance that has primacy not the policy or other ancillary documents.


Advertisement