Motor insurance - warning!!

[vernon]

So you've sold your car or motor cycle, signed the paperwork and notified DVLC. You owned the vehicle with no outstanding payments due on it so your financial obligations linked to the bike ceased the moment you posted the transfer documents and and handed the keys over to the new owner - right?

If you haven't cancelled the insurance policy immediately the sale is complete, think again!

Read the following two tales picked up from Facebook shares:

A biker has been left stunned after a insurance company forces him to cover accident on a bike that he had already sold on to a new owner.

A bewildered biker could be forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds after a man died on the motorcycle he had sold him days before.

A legal loophole means Paul Duffy could be liable for all insurance costs for the accident which claimed the life of banned driver James Bryson , despite having no link to it at all.

Bryson bought Paul’s Kawasaki Ninja on August 13 but was not insured when he smashed into a Toyota Yaris near Arbroath seven days later.

But because Paul forgot to cancel his policy, his insurance firm MCE Insurance are liable for the crash and can claim the costs from him in court.

Paul, from Methil in Fife, warned all drivers to cancel their insurance “the second” they hand over registration documents for any vehicle they sell.

The 48-year-old, who is recovering from leukaemia and cares for his disabled wife, said: “Lawyers said that because Mr Bryson had died and had no insurance, they would be paying out on my policy.

“Because he chose to buy my motorcycle, I am, in the eyes of the law, giving him permission to ride the bike and I am in breach of my contract. So if I have any assets, MCE can take them from me to recover costs.

“I am effectively having to pay for an uninsured driver having a fatal accident.

“I have never broken the law. I don’t even have as much as a speeding ticket.

“But I have been told this is the law, and I have no protection or rights.

“I honestly thought that once the bike was sold, it was no longer my responsibility.

“I feel this is something every law-abiding, insurance-paying person should be aware of.”

Paul sold the Kawasaki ZX10R for just under £3500 to Bryson, who took the bike away on a 4x4 after filling in the paperwork and registration documents.

Bryson, 28, from Dundee , was serving a four-year driving ban when he was killed.

The father of one was treated at the scene next to a stone wall on Seaton Road, Arbroath, but paramedics could not save him.

Bryson was jailed for six months for driving a friend’s car through Arbroath while being chased by three police vehicles and while nearly three times the drink-drive limit in January.

He was released from jail last month and went on holiday to Bulgaria with his girlfriend.

MCE Insurance, from Merseyside, refused to comment.

I sold my bike through a classified ad. The guy bought it, didn’t test ride it and took it away in a van. I sent off the log book and didn’t think any more about it. I have now heard from my insurers. I had not informed them I had sold the bike and had kept my insurance going (I knew the refund would be poxy so I thought I may as well get a full year’s no-claims).

I am now told that the new buyer had no insurance because his policy was void and was involved in an accident – and my insurers are saying that they will have to pay up, but they will becoming after me for the money. I don’t own my own home or have any assets but it is worrying me sick. What exactly has happened here?

Answer

You have a pretty big problem and I am I seeing this problem quite regularly. Since all insurance policies have gone onto a national and accessible database this is becoming a real issue.

Your insurers are right. Under European law innocent road users are entitled to be compensated for their injuries and the idea is a “cascade” of insurers and indemnifiers. So if the buyer had proper insurance, his insurers would pay up. (Insurers can “void” a policy if the proposer answers a question dishonestly or recklessly. A classic is “forgetting” to declare points or a claim. The insurers can simply say that the policy never existed. They have to go through a process for this and this may well already have happened.)

The next stop on the cascade is an insurer who has taken a premium for the vehicle and the policy was not lapsed at the time of the collision, and that is unfortunately where you have become unstuck. Your insurers are obliged by law to meet the judgment and the costs of the action brought by the injured person.

You have no idea how badly injured that person is, so you don’t have a clue what you are looking at by way of the size of any claim but it is going to run into a few thousand pounds with costs and damages. Under your policy of insurance you have permitted a non-insured driver to use the vehicle your insurers were still insuring so you are in breach of your policy, and yes they can come after you.

The next question is what can they do to you? Very little in real terms as you have no assets. They could feasibly bankrupt you but things would be a lot worse if you owned your own home because they can and do come after you if you have assets.

Andrew Dalton

RiDE Magazine October 2013

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton is a highly experienced trial lawyer who delights in taking on difficult and demanding motorcycle cases. He has a tough and relentless litigation style and is utterly focussed on getting the best possible outcomes for his clients.

 

[AndyWilliams]

WOW!!!!!

 

[classic33]

WOW!!!!!

That's an understatement.

 

[AndyWilliams]

What happened to the days of signing the log book, handing over the keys and that was it.
The country has gone mad.

 

[CopperBrompton]

It's actually slightly worse than this: even cancelling the policy isn't enough as it's not deemed cancelled until you return the insurance certificate. Yep, the certificate that you almost certainly received via email ...

 

[AndyWilliams]

That I don't have a printer for!!!
Nice.

 

[Brandane]

.
Nice to know, as up until now I have done the same as most others. Sell bike/car, inform DVLA, and keep insurance going until I get a replacement car/bike, then inform insurers of vehicle change.
So now you have to cancel insurance (and pay admin fee), then start a new policy when you replace the vehicle ( sorry sir but as you don't have a history of continuous insurance then the cost will be an extra £££).
Wonderful.

 

[Archie_tect]

Those 2 sales sound a bit dodgy anyway, especially the second one.

 

[screenman]

I would say this would be easy to contest. I am having trouble finding anything solid about it. Could you give me a hint where to look please.

 

[User33236]

A number of years ago my car was hit in Liverpool and written off. Turned out the bloke driving it (the brother of the owner) was not insured for the vehicle.

Thankfully, in my case, (and is possibly clearer circumstances) the 'loophole' mentioned above helped me. As the owner had 'given permission' for the vehicle to be driver by her brother her insurance company paid he out in full and successfully sued her to get their money back.

I can't recall what laws were mentioned but vaguely remember some reference to the road traffic act.

 

[johorn]

Wow thanks for the tip!

 

[Kiwiavenger]

2 ways it could be dealt with, either as RTA insurer or Article 75 - in this case looks like RTA insurers would be how they dealt with it.

RTA Insurer
If an insurer decides to void the policy they then have the right to cease proceedings on the policyholders claim. However, they may still be obliged to pay any innocent third party claimant as the RTA Insurer (i.e. they still have a liability to third parties). A maximum of £1,000,000 can be paid for third party property claims and the insurer may look to pursue their policyholder for the cost of any payments made.
Unlike the Article 75 Insurer, RTA Insurers understand that the policy would have been accepted & valid prior to the policy inception as the non-disclosed material either isn't serious enough to have denied insurance in the first place, or it occurred after the policy start date.

Article 75
An insurer may look to seek Article 75 status within RTA law if it transpires that the policyholder failed to declare an important fact (such as a drink-drive ban). In this case the insurer will cancel the policy as if it was never incepted (known as ab initio). To do so, an insurer must apply for a declaration under Section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 through the court system.
The benefit to an insurer in applying for Article 75 status is that there is no liability if there is another insurer with a higher status (contractual or RTA), and their driver has a meaningful degree of liability (even 1% of liability rests with another party). There is also no liability to meet subrogated claims (claims where another party should have been responsible for settling). Claims for damage to property arising before (but not after) 11 June 2007 are subject to a compulsory excess of £300.


Basically tell your insurers everything as soon as possible (except normal points on your license, they can wait until renewal) even a change in occupation or commuting use.

 

[Archie_tect]

So if you aren't insured you haven't got a contract so can't be sued? Now that's a loophole!

 

[Beebo]

So if you aren't insured you haven't got a contract so can't be sued? Now that's a loophole!

You can be sued, and the insurers will have had to secured an unfulfilled court judgement against the driver before the other insurer will pay up. The problem is that the driver is probably a man of straw, which is why they will pursue the other insurers.
In my experience it would be very rare for an insure to then follow through with a legal claim against the person who bought the policy. I expect the ombudsman would take a very dim view of that.

 

[srw]

You can be sued, and the insurers will have had to secured an unfulfilled court judgement against the driver before the other insurer will pay up. The problem is that the driver is probably a man of straw, which is why they will pursue the other insurers.
In my experience it would be very rare for an insure to then follow through with a legal claim against the person who bought the policy. I expect the ombudsman would take a very dim view of that.

This situation doesn't sound new at all - the fundamental rules on motor insurance haven't changed for donkey's years. What has changed is social media, and the ease with which half-truths and distorted stories can be shared.