Insurance cover query with Garda consequences

coylemj wrote: »

The owner's insurance did not cover other drivers and the OP has no insurance of his own.



The more I read the thread, the less complex it appears. Van, car, truck, motorbike.... the OP was not covered to drive the vehicle, period.

OP has insurance on his own vehicle. Depending on the exact wording and interpretation of that insurance policy and the circumstances in which he was driving the van he may (or may not) be covered by the driving other vehicles clause of his own insurance. Hence the advice to get expert opinion.

FishOnABike wrote: »

OP has insurance on his own vehicle.

random voice wrote: »

I dont have insurance.....

FishOnABike wrote: »

Depending on the exact wording and interpretation of that insurance policy and the circumstances in which he was driving the van he may (or may not) be covered by the driving other vehicles clause of his own insurance. Hence the advice to get expert opinion.

Even if the OP did have a policy in his own name and he did have 'driving other cars', he would not be covered to drive a van if he was insured with any of these companies and that is regardless of the purpose of the trip or whether there was goods onboard or not....

Liberty ('driving other cars') ..

This extension applies while being driven within the territorial limits and only to private passenger cars. It does not include:

vans
car-vans
crew cabs
jeep-type vehicles with no seats in the back
vans adapted to carry passengers or
any vehicles taxed commercially

Allianz.....

Endorsement No 4 – Driving other Cars

We will insure You in respect of legal liability, as provided under Section 1 (Third Party Insurance) whilst You are driving another Private Car, provided such Private Car.......

FBD ('Third party driving of other cars')

This extension applies to private passenger cars driven with the owner’s permission only.

Aviva ('Driving other cars')

This cover will only apply if –

9. the motor vehicle being driven is solely a Private car. This cover does not include the driving of any commercial vehicles, camper vehicles, vans, car-vans, vans adapted to carry passengers or vehicles used for hire or reward such as a taxi or a hackney car;

Axa (1b Driving other cars)

This extension applies only to private passenger vehicles. It does not include vans, car-vans, jeeps with no seats in the back or vans adapted to carry passengers.

RSA (via 123.ie) Section 2 Driving other Motor Cars

We will cover ........... while You are driving any private motor car with the owner’s permission, providing:

(iv) it is not a car-van with only 2 seats or less, nor a motorcycle nor commercial vehicle of any kind;

random voice wrote: »

I tried talking to the guard, he took great pleasure in once again highlighting my bad driving, he specifically mentioned me being insured for that particular vehicle - i am not. I expect to be summonsed and go to court. I do not wish to attempt insurance fraud on top of the original offence. Its too bad there are cops out looking to up there tally of convictions on soft targets and are invisible when it comes to tackling hardened criminals. I accept my shortcomings and just hope the old man doesnt get into trouble also as he was a passenger.

Its easy to pass it off as an over zealous Gard, but what would have happened if you'd hit someone and injured them?

Driving without insurance is well outside "ah sure itll be grand" territory.

random voice wrote: »

I didnt know I didnt have insurance!!! I came on here for advice not for a lesson in morality.

I know you didn't, you covered it at the start. But you still seem to continue with the narrative that the Gard was somehow at fault or should just let you away with it and if he doesn't hes a prick.

random voice wrote: »

I tried talking to the guard, he took great pleasure in once again highlighting my bad driving, he specifically mentioned me being insured for that particular vehicle - i am not. I expect to be summonsed and go to court. I do not wish to attempt insurance fraud on top of the original offence. Its too bad there are cops out looking to up there tally of convictions on soft targets and are invisible when it comes to tackling hardened criminals. I accept my shortcomings and just hope the old man doesnt get into trouble also as he was a passenger.

The best you can do is engage a solicitor then attend court. If presented like this you might get offered the poor box route to avoid a conviction. Expect it to be at least as much as the potential fine.

Marcusm wrote: »

The best you can do is engage a solicitor then attend court. If presented like this you might get offered the poor box route to avoid a conviction. Expect it to be at least as much as the potential fine.

Although the OP has expressed the wish that the 'old man' (the van owner) doesn't get into trouble, this might be the only way for the OP to avoid a conviction and a heavy fine.

It would go something like this: the Garda summons the owner for permitting someone to drive his vehicle without insurance and the OP for driving without insurance. Both of them appear in court and the 'old man' admits that he told the OP that he was insured but later realised that he didn't have open driving. Old man gets hammered with a big fine while the OP gets to make a donation to the court poor box, the judge applies the Probation Act and the OP avoids a conviction.

If the OP alone is summonsed, his excuse won't really wash. The judge will have heard every excuse in the book and that one won't get much sympathy. One of them has to take a hit and if the owner is not summonsed, the OP will get a conviction and a big fine. You need a seriously good excuse to avoid a conviction for driving with no insurance.

Hoboo wrote: »

You need qualified legal advice, and you won't get it here. Another thread of opinions with little or no fact.

We have all the facts we need. Even the OP admits he was not covered to drive the van. There is no conceivable way he was insured.

You're suggesting that 'qualified legal advice' could come up with a solution?

coylemj wrote: »

Although the OP has expressed the wish that the 'old man' (the van owner) doesn't get into trouble, this might be the only way for the OP to avoid a conviction and a heavy fine.

It would go something like this: the Garda summons the owner for permitting someone to drive his vehicle without insurance and the OP for driving without insurance. Both of them appear in court and the 'old man' admits that he told the OP that he was insured but later realised that he didn't have open driving. Old man gets hammered with a big fine while the OP gets to make a donation to the court poor box, the judge applies the Probation Act and the OP avoids a conviction.

If the OP alone is summonsed, his excuse won't really wash. The judge will have heard every excuse in the book and that one won't get much sympathy. One of them has to take a hit and if the owner is not summonsed, the OP will get a conviction and a big fine. You need a seriously good excuse to avoid a conviction for driving with no insurance.

The variation in court districts is extremely broad in terms of what is “acceptable”.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its easy to pass it off as an over zealous Gard, but what would have happened if you'd hit someone and injured them?

Driving without insurance is well outside "ah sure itll be grand" territory.

Ffs, he asked for advice, not for your moralising.

If he had hit and injured someone they would've been covered by the MIBI. Yeah, he'd be in ****, but it wouldn't be anyone else's problem.

Quick summary ;
1. Owner's insurance did not cover driver.
2. Driver has no insurance to cover this.

Who is open to a charge of driving with no insurance ?
1. The owner.
2. The driver.

Where is the relevant law on this ?
RTA 1961 Section 56.
link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56

IMHO on the evidence it seems that a presumption of guilt lies against both putative defendants. Many of these RTA type offences fall in to the realms of strict liability i.e. once incriminating facts are established guilt is presumed and defendant carries the burden of escaping culpability.

Although OP was definitely not covered by insurance it is not an automatic conviction for driving without insurance if he can establish reasonable doubt about the circumstances in which he came to be driving without insurance. e.g. erroneous information from the owner about insurance cover which the driver did not have proper reason to doubt or query. This would be a hard case to make but it is actually possible with some good advocacy !

It would be a real Hail Mary job but could OP argue that he was a servant of the owner as per subsection 6 of S.56 ;

(6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.

Ultimately it will be for OP's solicitor to advise on how to plead.

coylemj wrote: »

Sorry but you're making out that 'I thought I was insured' is a good defence, it is not. Judges hear those excuses every day they sit, they don't get you anywhere except maybe a small amount of mitigation. If you're looking for a fool's pardon, you won't get one in the traffic court when it comes to driving without insurance.

And the 'servant' (of the owner) defence won't stand up. OP would need to show that he was an employee of the owner.

So, are there no circumstances in which a person who unknowingly finds that they do not have motor insurance will be acquitted in the District Court ?

coylemj wrote: »

Go ahead then, quote your case.

I am not citing any authority.

I am simply querying the universal proposition that you offered.