Insured but not covered.

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
What the story as you've related it doesn't point out is that if the driver isn't covered by their own insurance, the Motor Insurance Bureau steps in and pays out on third party liability claims (which is what this is).

It's where about 2.5% of everyone's motor premiums go.

And to your point, insurance companies vary in the strictness with which they interpret their wordings. "Legally insured but not covered" sounds like something of a misrepresentation to me. It's one of the many reasons why its not worth simply buying the cheapest insurance you can find.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
Since the minimum legal cover is against third party damage/injury, I'd have thought that if the insurers say he's legally insured then by definition he must have the minimum cover and be liable to pay out to the injured 3rd party.


GC
 

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
And to your point, insurance companies vary in the strictness with which they interpret their wordings. "Legally insured but not covered" sounds like something of a misrepresentation to me. It's one of the many reasons why its not worth simply buying the cheapest insurance you can find.
You're right of course. But expecting the man on the Clapham omnibus to be able to differentiate between insurance policies on anything other than price is a bit of a stretch methinks
 

Saluki

I've run away with my friends to..
Location
...New Tealandia
I used to work for Norwich Union (Aviva as it is now) and we insisted on any alterations to the vehicle being declared so changing from steel wheels to alloys needed to be mentioned as it's not how there car was originally bought, colour changes of course. Paint jobs are expensive to repair if it's a custom job.

Insurance companies will look for any excuse not to pay out. I've known them refuse to pay out on fully comp cover when the driver was not wearing their seatbelt in an accident, another was because people took the rear seats out of the car and put a flat board in to carry stuff about better - non standard so the insurance wouldn't pay out except for the 3rd party costs.

Jeremy Vine is like listening to the Daily Fail. I have to turn him off as he really narks me off.
 
We have fitted after market towbars to all our vehicles for the bike rack. Even this has to be mentioned as a modification in case the car is rear ended!
 

Paul99

Über Member
[QUOTE 3518195, member: 9609"]I think this is all quite well established that insurance companies will look for any excuse not to pay out to the first party, but this was about refusing to pay out to the third party. I do view insurance companies as the lowest of the low, but this seems to fall to new depths.[/QUOTE]
The problem is not that the insurance company is refusing to pay the 3rd party, it is the public's (your) perception of how this works.

The 3rd party is not insured by the drivers insurance company, they haven't paid any premium to them have they? Therefore they have no obligation to pay them if the drivers insurance is invalid for whatever reason. The 3rd party has a claim against the driver not the insurance company.
They don't pay and are not legally obliged to either because they know that the 3rd party should and will be paid by the MIB, to which the insurance company has paid a portion of the premium for just such an occurrence .
 

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
[QUOTE 3518195, member: 9609"]But if the story in the OP is to be believed and the insurance company is trying to get out of paying third party, then how do we compel a driver in another vehicle to make a wiser choice.[/QUOTE]

People will always make bad choices because some people don't understand/can't be bothered to understand the details of what they're signing up to. So we either accept that or we regulate the insurance market so that, for example, certain modifications are not required to be notified
 
frankly I don't believe the original story.

It's quite hard for insurers to get out of their (once proven) 3rd party obligations if they've issued insurance. They may well and frequently do argue that their client is not at fault, and hence they're (the insurers) don't have to pay, but that's not the same thing. If the insured is deemed liable, the insurers will cover it. Now if the insured has misrepresented or not mentioned something pertinent, they can get out of paying the comprehensive part of the cover, and I believe they can even try and re-claim their payout from the insured - but this is after they've paid the victim
 
I understood it that insurance would ALWAYS cover 3rd party but would be eligible to recover their costs from the policy holder under certain conditions (drunk, unroadworthy car etc)
 
Top Bottom