Is unaccompanied driver insured?

rugbyman · 09-05-2018 08:44PM #1

Hello folks

i have read several older threads on this questiom. i think matters have tightened up a bit recently

i know of a l driver who has his own insurance in his own name. he has been stopped. can he possibly be found guilty of having no insurance

my own broker, 30 years experienc, says of course he is insured, like what it says on the cert. it states that he should be accompanied , but i dont think that being unaccompanied invalidates the insurance.

a google search a minute ago suggests i am right.. does anyone out there have any definite experience

Thanks

Samuel T. Cogley · 09-05-2018 08:46PM

You need to read the policy. Some seem to be attempting to disclaim.

tcawley29 · 09-05-2018 09:01PM

I think its valid for third party only usually and that they won't pay out for any damage to his own car.

Alanstrainor · 09-05-2018 09:14PM

He has to read his policy docs. But as far as a Garda can tell he will show as being insured on their side. His name is on the policy, and the details are correct. Things get messy when there is a claim however.

rugbyman · 09-05-2018 10:43PM

Thank you for your replies.
i think the gist of what ye are sayi ng is that he is insured( my own searches into this is that he is always insured ,but that in certain cases the insurers may sue him for repayment)

unfortunately this chap accepted a conviction. i feel strongly that he was ill advised

any more info gratefully accepted

Alanstrainor · 09-05-2018 11:03PM

rugbyman wrote: »

Thank you for your replies.
i think the gist of what ye are sayi ng is that he is insured( my own searches into this is that he is always insured ,but that in certain cases the insurers may sue him for repayment)

unfortunately this chap accepted a conviction. i feel strongly that he was ill advised

any more info gratefully accepted

If his policy documents say that he is not insured unless accompanied by a qualified driver then that is that really. That is the point that people need to take from this thread.

Gooser14 · 09-05-2018 11:27PM

rugbyman wrote:

unfortunately this chap accepted a conviction. i feel strongly that he was ill advised

What was the conviction for? Was it for not having insurance or for driving unaccompanied?

beechwood55 · 10-05-2018 07:29PM

If his policy documents say that he is not insured unless accompanied by a qualified driver then that is that really. That is the point that people need to take from this thread.

This.
I have an Aviva policy. My teenage daughter is now on the policy as a learner driver. The policy document states very clearly that she is only insured to drive the car if she is accompanied. If she drives unaccompanied she is not insured.

rugbyman · 11-05-2018 09:09PM

Gooser he was charged with no insurance, not failing to produce

Regards

Alanstrainor your first contribution is self evident , and correct in my opinion

whether it gets messy is not evident.. a google search of Irish publicationns, newspapers etc, all suggest that and quote various insurance companies tended to say , payout depends on the circumstances

your second post refers to "policy saying he is not insured" is a vague negative in the absence of some positive statement.., Liberty excepted

Liberty ,alone in my searches state clearly that insurance is invalid without supervision

Beechwood, you are the first to quote your own policy , which is what i was hoping for, But does it say it as clearly as you say "if she drives unaccompanied she is not insured"

my friend, an insurance broker recons that insurance ,especially where the learner is the policy holder, is valid when driving alone. She is awarte of Libertys stance, but takes it with a pinch of salt

my own daughter is on mine. I have yet to look at my policy ,but will do.

perhaps this forum is not widely read, but i would love to hear of someones real experience

Thanks all

Cows Go µ · 11-05-2018 10:04PM

The aviva policy booklet words it like this in the general conditions of the policy:

"Any learner permit holder whose
driving is covered by the terms
of the certificate 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. The learner permit holder
must comply with all restrictions,
conditions and limits of their
learner permit as prescribed by
the Road Traffic Acts and any
other regulations, which apply to
such learner permit holders while
driving."

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.aviva.ie/media-library/MotorCare%2520Policy%2520Booklet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwju563W1P7aAhUDVsAKHfnaBzoQFjABegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2fwUReoBav5arhiWTnqAw7

Do you know who your friend is insured with?

Alanstrainor · 12-05-2018 04:40PM

rugbyman wrote: »

Gooser he was charged with no insurance, not failing to produce

Regards

Alanstrainor your first contribution is self evident , and correct in my opinion

whether it gets messy is not evident.. a google search of Irish publicationns, newspapers etc, all suggest that and quote various insurance companies tended to say , payout depends on the circumstances

your second post refers to "policy saying he is not insured" is a vague negative in the absence of some positive statement.., Liberty excepted

Liberty ,alone in my searches state clearly that insurance is invalid without supervision

Beechwood, you are the first to quote your own policy , which is what i was hoping for, But does it say it as clearly as you say "if she drives unaccompanied she is not insured"

my friend, an insurance broker recons that insurance ,especially where the learner is the policy holder, is valid when driving alone. She is awarte of Libertys stance, but takes it with a pinch of salt

my own daughter is on mine. I have yet to look at my policy ,but will do.

perhaps this forum is not widely read, but i would love to hear of someones real experience

Thanks all

What does a vague negative mean? If you're unsure of what the meaning of your policy docs are you need to contact your insurance company and get them to put it in writing. My statement was basic, and obvious really.

But at the end of the day, it is illegal to drive unaccompanied. It simply shouldn't be done. They should be striving towards passing their test asap.

artanevilla · 12-05-2018 04:47PM

wrong thread

rugbyman · 13-05-2018 06:08PM

Alan,

my expression vague negative is one i made up and re reading your second post , it was not correct. apologies.
your was a direct negative ,where you used the words " policy states that he/she is not insured"

such expressions are used ,i believe, by Liberty

the point of me starting this thread is to see if any members KNOW of a claim being disallowed by an insurer, or perhaps more of interest to me ,where a judge ruled a learner,driving alone was uninsured( except under Liberty insurance)

Beechwoods comments that his daughter is not insured , this may well be true with Aviva, but i would like to see the policy. (no offence, Beechwood)

Cows go U quotes an aviva policy, which may or may not be the same as Beechwoods,

are there any readers on here who reckon Cows go U s quote means that the insurance is invalidated by the absence of a qualified driver? I do not see that conclusion ( unlike Liberty)

I just looked at my own policy with Allianz. (17 year old named)

" provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive, or having held one is not disqualified"

searching for info, i remain, yours

beechwood55 · 14-05-2018 10:41PM

The Aviva policy statement as quoted above is in the documentation I received in relation to my daughter. It is one of 6 general conditions of the policy. Those 6 conditions are preceded by this statement

You must keep to these conditions before we will make any payment under this policy

My interpretation of that is that if my daughter drives without either myself or her dad being with her, then Aviva will not pay out on any claim that may arise ie. she is effectively driving uninsured.

The pigeon man · 15-05-2018 07:26AM

They are still obliged to pay out to third parties involved in an accident, even in the case that your daughter is driving unaccompanied. This is stated under the road traffic compulsory insurance regulations.

They cannot disclaim liability to other parties despite the driver committing an illegal act such as drink driving, once that driver has taken out an insurance policy on the car they're driving.

Glass fused light · 15-05-2018 08:05AM

rugbyman wrote: »

but i dont think that being unaccompanied invalidates the insurance.

Thanks

There are 3 issues
1 the driver is a idiot in this day and age to be driving unaccompanied, and no it was not needed driver could have opted to walk or cycle.
2 the insurance company can not issue a contact of insurance which has a third party exclusion so the other party who suffers a loss from the driver action is compensated
3 the driver had by their action invalidated their personal protection from paying for the loss and would owe the insurance company the full cost of dealing with any claim.

rugbyman wrote: »

unfortunately this chap accepted a conviction. i feel strongly that he was ill advised

any more info gratefully accepted

If the L driver was being charged either they did not produce, or did but it was not recorded, or the Garda made a mistake or the insurance company cancelled the policy for a reason and the driver is not discussing why.

If he did not bother to get a solicitor and accepted a conviction, prehaps he's better off not driving. If he got a solicitor and he's not discussing why, he accepted the conviction for a reason.

_Brian · 15-05-2018 08:14AM

Glass fused light wrote: »

There are 3 issues
1 the driver is a idiot in this day and age to be driving unaccompanied, and no it was not needed driver could have opted to walk or cycle.
2 the insurance company can not issue a contact of insurance which has a third party exclusion so the other party who suffers a loss from the driver action is compensated
3 the driver had by their action invalidated their personal protection from paying for the loss and would owe the insurance company the full cost of dealing with any claim.

If the L driver was being charged either they did not produce, or did but it was not recorded, or the Garda made a mistake or the insurance company cancelled the policy for a reason and the driver is not discussing why.

If he did not bother to get a solicitor and accepted a conviction, prehaps he's better off not driving. If he got a solicitor and he's not discussing why, he accepted the conviction for a reason.

But For example in the case of the Aviva policy it clearly states that an unaccompanied driver is NOT INSURED, if you produced this policy after being stopped unaccompanied would it not then be legitimate to have a conviction for driving without insurance?

Glass fused light · 15-05-2018 08:42AM

_Brian wrote: »

But For example in the case of the Aviva policy it clearly states that an unaccompanied driver is NOT INSURED, if you produced this policy after being stopped unaccompanied would it not then be legitimate to have a conviction for driving without insurance?

http://www.dttas.ie/roads/english/motor-insurance

Legislation

The basic legislation relating to compulsory motor third party liability insurance is contained in Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended. There is a body of EU legislation covering third party motor insurance which has been transposed into Irish Law.

My understanding is that since the 60's ^^ or so it has been a legal obligation to have 3rd party insurance, and that the minimum the insurance company can issue for car insurance was 3rd party. This was not to protect the driver but the 3rd party so the insurance company is not legally entitled to limit that part of the contract. Lets face it if they could no one would get paid, ever.

Now the driving licence v learners permit may be an issue under the current legistation. Policies say driving licence or not excluded from having one, and a learners permit is not a licence. But I expect that any exclusion clause is not worth the cost of the ink, as you can't contract out of a legal obligation just contract out the risk to a third party ie the insurance company. What a L driver has done is invalidat their policy cover, risk transfer, on their side, and retain the cost of the risk.

_Brian · 15-05-2018 09:30PM

Glass fused light wrote: »

http://www.dttas.ie/roads/english/motor-insurance

My understanding is that since the 60's ^^ or so it has been a legal obligation to have 3rd party insurance, and that the minimum the insurance company can issue for car insurance was 3rd party. This was not to protect the driver but the 3rd party so the insurance company is not legally entitled to limit that part of the contract. Lets face it if they could no one would get paid, ever.

Now the driving licence v learners permit may be an issue under the current legistation. Policies say driving licence or not excluded from having one, and a learners permit is not a licence. But I expect that any exclusion clause is not worth the cost of the ink, as you can't contract out of a legal obligation just contract out the risk to a third party ie the insurance company. What a L driver has done is invalidat their policy cover, risk transfer, on their side, and retain the cost of the risk.

All I can add is I was personally involved in a claim on a motor policy against FBD.
FBD faught the cast vehamently for five years building up substantial legal and medical costs.. At the very last hurdle, in the four courts FBD voided the insurance policy and left the owners of the vehicle to shoulder the full cost of the whole case.

So my direct experience is they can and do void insurance policies leaving the vehicle owner with no cover whatsoever.

rugbyman · 23-05-2018 01:45PM

The pigeon man wrote: »

They are still obliged to pay out to third parties involved in an accident, even in the case that your daughter is driving unaccompanied. This is stated under the road traffic compulsory insurance regulations.

They cannot disclaim liability to other parties despite the driver committing an illegal act such as drink driving, once that driver has taken out an insurance policy on the car they're driving.

Thank you Pigeon man, this is what i believe also and my broker friend agrees. can you show a link to this regulation.

Regards

The pigeon man · 23-05-2018 11:26PM

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1962/si/14/made/en/print

There's a good bit of reading in it but it confirms that limiting the liability to a third party is a prohibited condition in an insurance policy

Eggs For Dinner · 26-05-2018 07:14AM

The pigeon man wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1962/si/14/made/en/print

There's a good bit of reading in it but it confirms that limiting the liability to a third party is a prohibited condition in an insurance policy

Limiting liability to a 3rd party only refers to capping the amount they can receive, not whether they will receive compensation or not. An insurer is obliged to compensate a 3rd party under the Road Traffic Act. If you breach your policy conditions, an insurer will compensate the 3rd party. However, because you are not entitled to indemnity under your policy, they can seek to get their money back from you personally

Del2005 · 26-05-2018 08:17AM

Alanstrainor wrote: »

If his policy documents say that he is not insured unless accompanied by a qualified driver then that is that really. That is the point that people need to take from this thread.

The problem in Ireland is that the person isn't abiding by the conditions of their permit so its not valid, if you don't have a valid permit or licence for the vehicle you are driving you cannot be insured. But our system means that 3rd parties aren't penalised for uninsured drivers so they pay out for them, but the insurance company can recover the cost of the payout from the "policy" holder and while they didn't before I think that they are now

Glass fused light · 26-05-2018 11:12AM

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem in Ireland is that the person isn't abiding by the conditions of their permit so its not valid, if you don't have a valid permit or licence for the vehicle you are driving you cannot be insured. But our system means that 3rd parties aren't penalised for uninsured drivers so they pay out for them, but the insurance company can recover the cost of the payout from the "policy" holder and while they didn't before I think that they are now

Insurance is risk transferrence, moving the cost of the loss from the driver to the insurance company. If the driver has a valid policy they are insured against paying out 3rd party costs.

But, as with _Brain's case above the person who is not abiding by the conditions of the permit is also likely not to appreciate the need to abide by their responsibility to be true and fair when entering into contracts of utmost good faith ie an insurance policy.

This in turn allows the insurance company to prove that the insurance contract was invalidated by the actions of the driver, and as a result void the policy leaving the driver directly liable for the 3rd party damage.

rugbyman · 01-06-2018 06:50PM

thank you for your comments. it seems from most of ye that the insurance still works for an unaccompanied driver.

the fact that the insured may be asked to repay(if he can) is further down the line.. he is insured/

Pigeon man ,i did not get to read that link yet, thanks, your summation of its contents suggests to me that even Liberty would have to pay out

Regards

Henry Ford III · 05-06-2018 11:34AM

3rd party cover will remain in force imho, but a claim will mean a big black mark against the learner driver going forward.

There's no excuse for driving solo. It really is a very silly thing to do. Get caught and it'll hurt.

Is unaccompanied driver insured?

Comments