Being carried in illegal cars

[AnOther]

On another forum a question was asked regarding accepting a lift in car which was suspected to be not properly registered.

One respondent advised the poster to 'get on with his life' and not worry about such things as it was 'not his problem' however I think it's topic worthy of further serious comment because it's a situation in which many may actually be in without neccessarily realising it, when being delivered/collected from an airport in a UK registered car which shouldn't be for instance.

It's one of the basics tenets of insurance cover that you should not knowingly or deliberately place yourself in a position of peril. By permitting yourself to be carried in a vehicle which you know, or even suspect, may not be properly registered (hence the insurance potentially being open to question), you could be held to have placed yourself in such a situation and in the event of an injury may find yourself denied any payout from the drivers insurance or maybe a reduced one as you were judged at least partly at fault.

I'd be interested in any other takes on the scenario, does liabilty insurance work differently in France ?

 

 

 

[Boiling a frog]

Provided that the insurance coy has issued a certificate of insurance which covers the obligatory 3rd party risks ,which is a standard for the whole of the EU, then the assurance coy is obliged to pay out for any injury caused to a third party including passengers .They cannot, by law ,refuse to pay out .

In the UK the only time a passenger is not covered is when that person is a passenger in a stolen car and even then there is an exeption.If the person only realises after he is in the car that it is stolen and he is unable to leave the vehicle he will still be covered in case of injury..

[Chancer]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

Provided that the insurance coy has issued a certificate of insurance which covers the obligatory 3rd party risks ,which is a standard for the whole of the EU, then the assurance coy is obliged to pay out for any injury caused to a third party including passengers .They cannot, by law ,refuse to pay out .

In the UK the only time a passenger is not covered is when that person is a passenger in a stolen car and even then there is an exeption.If the person only realises after he is in the car that it is stolen and he is unable to leave the vehicle he will still be covered in case of injury..

[/quote]

Quite right, interestingly in the exception quoted above it is the insurance company of the owner of the stolen vehicle (who quite understandably wont have had any involvement in the theft or carrying of "unknowing passenger" joyriders) that will pay out for the personal injuries of said "unknowing accomplice".

Its a double whammy for the real victim of the crime as he will lose his NCB and get nothing for the loss of his car if he gas third party insurance.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="J.Rs gone native"]

Quite right, interestingly in the exception quoted above it is the insurance company of the owner of the stolen vehicle (who quite understandably wont have had any involvement in the theft or carrying of "unknowing passenger" joyriders) that will pay out for the personal injuries of said "unknowing accomplice".

Its a double whammy for the real victim of the crime as he will lose his NCB and get nothing for the loss of his car if he gas third party insurance.[/quote]

 

The insured person does not lose his no claims bonus and surely if someone is daft enough to only insure third party then that is their mistake ,no use blaming anyone else.They would be fully aware or stupid to think that third party cover only would cover the theft of their vehicle

[Ole Git]

If the Insurance is not for "Hire & Reward", the moment you enter the car the Insurance becomes null and void and you are travelling in a uninsured vehicle.

[Boiling a frog]

Nowhere did anyone mention that the hypothetical vehicle was being used for hire or reward and even if it was the 3rd party risk still stands. The third party insurance risk is not voidable.

Think about it.

Someone offers you a lift do you ask if the car is insured,has an MOT or CT, does the driver have a licence,is the car roadworthy, do you inspect the tyres, do you check the brakes are working ,someone sticks a taxi sign on the roof of their car ,do you ask whether he has insurance for hire or reward.

Even if the vehicle is not insured a claim can be made to the equivalant body in France of  MIB in the UK. The only exclusion is if the person ie passenger knew or  should have known that the driver was uninsured (ie a family member)  

The law is  sensible on this occasion.  

[allanb]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]Provided that the insurance coy has issued a certificate of insurance which covers the obligatory 3rd party risks, which is a standard for the whole of the EU, then the assurance coy is obliged to pay out for any injury caused to a third party including passengers. They cannot, by law, refuse to pay out.[/quote]

This is true, except that the amount of third-party cover is not an EU standard: it varies from country to country, and the countries are not all members of the EU.

But in any case, if you feel reassured by this, you should be aware that if your policy is invalid for some reason, and your insurers nevertheless pay a third-party claim because the law says they have to, they can almost certainly sue you to recover the amount they paid. 

[Chancer]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"][quote user="J.Rs gone native"]

Quite right, interestingly in the exception quoted above it is the insurance company of the owner of the stolen vehicle (who quite understandably wont have had any involvement in the theft or carrying of "unknowing passenger" joyriders) that will pay out for the personal injuries of said "unknowing accomplice".

Its a double whammy for the real victim of the crime as he will lose his NCB and get nothing for the loss of his car if he gas third party insurance.[/quote]

The insured person does not lose his no claims bonus and surely if someone is daft enough to only insure third party then that is their mistake ,no use blaming anyone else.They would be fully aware or stupid to think that third party cover only would cover the theft of their vehicle

[/quote]

I suspect that you may have misread my post BAF

I simply said that "... and get nothing for the lmoss of his car if he has third party insurance" i.e. stating an obvious fact.

No mention of blaming anyone else or being stupid to think that their vehicle is covered.

As for being daft enough to only insure 3rd party, I have third party insurance and for good reason, not a mistake and I dont consider myself daft although I respect your right to consider me and others daft without knowing the situation.

The situation that I quoted was a real one that happened to a friend (in England), he had TPO insurance, his car was stolen, rammed another vehicle whilst being chased by the police, the accomplice passenger was seriously injured but being a traveller new his way around the law and made out to be an unknowing passenger.

My friends insurance paid out for the other vehicle and personal injuries to the "unknowing passenger" and he did indeed lose his no claim bonus making it very hard for him to reinsure when he saved enough money to replace his vehicle.

 

[allanb]

[quote user="J.Rs gone native"]The situation that I quoted was a real one that happened to a friend (in England), he had TPO insurance, his car was stolen, rammed another vehicle whilst being chased by the police, the accomplice passenger was seriously injured but being a traveller new his way around the law and made out to be an unknowing passenger.

My friends insurance paid out for the other vehicle and personal injuries to the "unknowing passenger" and he did indeed lose his no claim bonus making it very hard for him to reinsure when he saved enough money to replace his vehicle.[/quote]

There's something I don't understand here.  If someone steals your car and causes injury or damage while driving it, you have no liability to the injured party, do you?  Why would your insurer pay out? 

In any case it seems very harsh to deprive your friend of his NCB.  Is that a common practice in the UK?  In France, at least with both of the insurers that I've used, your bonus/malus calculation would not be affected by an accident caused by someone who had stolen the car.

[Boiling a frog]

The insurance coy is legally obliged to pay out for injuries or damages caused to a third party ,that is why it is a legal requirement to have third party insurance.

I also cannot understand why this person allegedly lost his NCB if they were not at fault.

[Keith CHANNING]

Possibly because it is a No Claims Discount not a No Blame Discount?

[powerdesal]

As far as I know the UK Insurance companies have a "no fault claim" category, or possibly a "no fault accident" category when you fill in an application form and have to mention any previous claims history.

[allanb]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]The insurance coy is legally obliged to pay out for injuries or damages caused to a third party...[/quote]

But not in all circumstances.  That's my point.

What is insured is third-party liability incurred by the insured person (la responsabilité civile encourue par l'Assuré), and I question whether the insured person incurs any liability because of injury or damage done by his vehicle when it has been stolen.

[Boiling a frog]

From MIB

 

Section 151(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 places an

obligation on the insurers of the legal owner of a stolen

vehicle to meet a judgment against the driver of the

stolen vehicle.

 

So the insurers of the legal owner would have to pay out for damage/injury caused to a third party. The insured party is not liable but his insurance coy is.  

[allanb]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]From MIB

Section 151(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 places an obligation on the insurers of the legal owner of a stolen vehicle to meet a judgment against the driver of the stolen vehicle.[/quote]Thanks for the information.

You motivated me to do a bit more research on the position in France, and Google has taken me to what looks like a very useful document (in English) prepared by the Bureau Central Français and some other bodies.  Here's a link:  www.fga.fr/Guide%20anglaisF%20081104.doc

It confirms that the insurer would be liable in the same situation under French law, specifically referring to a car thief.

[Will]

Yes, European law says that every country has to operate a scheme similar to the MIB in UK so that innocent parties can be properly compensated in the case of being involved in accidents caused by those with no, or invalid, insurance cover. These schemes are country-based, rather than Europe-wide, or even across several countries, which is why there are potential problems over having French insurance for a vehicle still registered in Britain.

These provisions, of course, only apply within the EU (plus Switzerland and one or two other places).

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

Nowhere did anyone mention that the hypothetical vehicle was being used for hire or reward and even if it was the 3rd party risk still stands. The third party insurance risk is not voidable.

Think about it.

Someone offers you a lift do you ask if the car is insured,has an MOT or CT, does the driver have a licence,is the car roadworthy, do you inspect the tyres, do you check the brakes are working ,someone sticks a taxi sign on the roof of their car ,do you ask whether he has insurance for hire or reward.

[/quote]

Here's another take on the subject. Mrs Will (Judie) has to have full 'hire or reward' passenger cover for her car in France in order to take out clients of the estate agency by which she is employed. From what you say, it would appear that she is wasting her (not inconsiderable sum of) money.

And that the dubious self-employed commision-only agents, working out of their houses and meeting clients in a car park somewhere, who don't bother with niceties like passenger insurance cover (or even business cover) for their vehicles are actually quite OK?

 

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="Will"]

Here's another take on the subject. Mrs Will (Judie) has to have full 'hire or reward' passenger cover for her car in France in order to take out clients of the estate agency by which she is employed. From what you say, it would appear that she is wasting her (not inconsiderable sum of) money.

And that the dubious self-employed commision-only agents, working out of their houses and meeting clients in a car park somewhere, who don't bother with niceties like passenger insurance cover (or even business cover) for their vehicles are actually quite OK?

 

[/quote]

 

If one of her clients was injured and she did not have cover for hire or reward then the insurance coy would pay out, but I bet they would then pursue Mrs Will for the money they paid out.

[Will]

I certainly agree with you there, BaF. Which proves there is not really any substitute for proper insurance cover.

Another point, returning to an earlier theme - many British insurers offer a protected bonus scheme, so you can have a renewal note that shows a high level of so-called 'no-claim discount' even if you had a serious and expensive accident in recent years. Which is why the more switched-on French insurers want a letter confirming your accident record, rather than just sight of your last UK renewal notice, before giving you a full bonus.

And in France, they operate a 'malus' as well as a 'bonus' - something that is different from Britain, though bad risks will of course pay a higher premium anywhere.