View Full Version : My prat of a 'friend' (legal issue)
adamfool
02-05-07, 11:32 PM
My prat of a friend has been more of a prat than usual...:rolleyes:
He's 19, was riding his 33bhp Sv650s when he was involved in an accident where a lady drove into the rear of him. Simple enough...
His insurance company gave him a loan bike via a third party company whilst his was being repaired.
He then decided it would be a very good idea to overtake a car on said loan bike...while they were indicating to turn right... as i'm sure you can imagine this ended in a large crunch! The third party he had the loan bike collision with has started an insurance claim.
this is where things get fun... My friend didnt tell the loan bike company that he had a 33bhp restriction on his licence, he said he had a "full licence":toss: , and as such they supplied him with a full power CBF1000...
i'd like some advice as to the legal implications he can expect when the third party requests to see his licence, i'm thinking riding without a license and without insurance ( as they're sure to void it as he didnt declare the restriction)? ban? fine? etc?
cheers all,
adam
(Edit: i put the word friend in brackets because i'm not sure i should be considering somone that dim as a friend, not because its me!... it made perfect sence last night after a few beers lol!)
Riding without a licence & insurance I would say. I wouldn't be supprised if they threw in driving without due care & attention, since you said he overtook a car whilst they were indicating.
Personally, I hope they throw the book at him. The more people like him off the roads the better. Not only for riding a machine when he has no legal right to do so, but also for his riding style on said machine.
He'll be looking at points & a fine at least. IIRC, driving without insurance carries a minimum of 6 points. So if he's passed his test within the last 2 years, say byebye to his licence & he can start again, if he's lucky enough to not have a ban.
Also, there are implications for the loan company on this, as they have a responsibility to supply machines that people can ride. They should of demanded to see his licence & not just take his word for it.
Flamin_Squirrel
03-05-07, 06:25 AM
Also, there are implications for the loan company on this, as they have a responsibility to supply machines that people can ride. They should of demanded to see his licence & not just take his word for it.
Thats complete rubbish. Why do people need to be absolved even further of their responsibilities? I'm not interested in paying extra for red tape that'll get in my way should I ever need a loan bike.
ivantate
03-05-07, 06:53 AM
I guess there is a large excess on the loan bike for a start. My brother had one recently and it was £500.
I think if anyone tries their luck, succeeds and then breaks one of the biking basics deserves a good slap on the wrists.
This does go one stage further, basically being unqualified and uninsured etc... and it being someone elses bike.
Maybe pleading that the company was told about the licence and still sent a proper bike out would work. Depends if any forms were signed and how deep your friend wants to get in.
Even after a couple of years on some full power SVs I am unsure of my ability to be restrained on anything more powerful.
Alpinestarhero
03-05-07, 07:34 AM
My prat of a friend has been more of a prat than usual...:rolleyes:
He's 19, was riding his 33bhp Sv650s when he was involved in an accident where a lady drove into the rear of him. Simple enough...
His insurance company gave him a loan bike via a third party company whilst his was being repaired.
He then decided it would be a very good idea to overtake a car on said loan bike...while they were indicating to turn right... as i'm sure you can imagine this ended in a large crunch! The third party he had the loan bike collision with has started an insurance claim.
this is where things get fun... My friend didnt tell the loan bike company that he had a 33bhp restriction on his licence, he said he had a "full licence":toss: , and as such they supplied him with a full power CBF1000...
i'd like some advice as to the legal implications he can expect when the third party requests to see his licence, i'm thinking riding without a license and without insurance ( as they're sure to void it as he didnt declare the restriction)? ban? fine? etc?
cheers all,
adam
Well i guess this invalidates his insurance, and his lisence, as he is not legal to ride such a powerfull machine. The insurance company should have checked, especially since a 19 year old arouses suspisions on what type of license they should have. But really, its his faults for (1) overtaking in the first place and not being observant and (2) making the whole situation worse by not declaring what he is legal to ride - eyes bigger than his belly!
I'm with baph on this one; he should have his lisence revoked. Surely he;s on the new riders act (6 points and you have to retest)?
Sorry to not be supportive, but im on a 33 bhp and would never dream of doing such a thing if I where offered a courtesy bike (to take one more powerful than I am legally entitled to).
Matt
the_lone_wolf
03-05-07, 07:36 AM
might well be worth noting that if he's not had his license for 2 years or more he will lose it if he gets 6 points
edit... what he said ^^^
tbh if anyone is willing to drive or ride without a license or insurance then they don't deserve the right to use the roads, make it safer for the majority...
timwilky
03-05-07, 07:39 AM
My son was recently supplied a hire van by the 3rd party insurers liable for the damage to his own vehicle. The first thing the hire company did was demand to see his license and then drove away as they would not hire to anyone under 25. We then had 2 days without a vehicle whilst we found a hire company that would provide him a van and was acceptable to the 3rd party insurers who were picking up the bill and would hold the contract for the hire. (Plus £200/day loss of earnings whilst no vehicle).
So firstly who was providing the hire bike. The 3rd party insurers, his own or had he simply hired it himself and would recover his costs against the 3rd party. I am no expert. but there is firstly an issue of who was the contract with with regard to liabilty for the damage.
Secondly, you are right, your friend is a prat. He knew he had no license. That the insurance on the hire bike would be void etc. Stupid acts like that add to the cost and complexity for the law abidding to be supplied with replacements should we be in need
the best thing he can do IMO is to act dull (which sounds as if it wont be hard)
say he did not relise, as they did not ask him about his license,?
Thats complete rubbish. Why do people need to be absolved even further of their responsibilities? I'm not interested in paying extra for red tape that'll get in my way should I ever need a loan bike.
My son was recently supplied a hire van by the 3rd party insurers liable for the damage to his own vehicle. The first thing the hire company did was demand to see his license and then drove away as they would not hire to anyone under 25.
F_S, pretty much as timwilky; EVERY time I've hired a car or van, they have demanded to see my licence before handing over the keys. Why should bikes be different?
Also, should you ever need a loan bike during an insurance issue for any reason, I highly doubt you'd be paying.
The main responsability is that of the rider, I was just saying that the loan company will probably take some of the wrap for it as well, since they handed the keys over to an unlicenced and therefore uninsured rider.
It does make me wonder though if they were provided licence details by the insurance company, and took these as gospel. Has the insurance company got the licence details wrong? Now that could start a whole new world of trouble for our young intrepid adventurer.
ASM-Forever
03-05-07, 07:51 AM
Sounds like he is screwed and tbh, he deserves it.
Aside from the license issue, or lack there of, surely he is going to end up havng to pay for the CBF and the damage to the car himself, as nada insurance.
Basically he has pulled down his boxers and bent over infront of Elton John.....what a tw@
muffles
03-05-07, 08:18 AM
As has been mentioned above, you'd think that given the loan company organised the bike, they'd know about his 33hp licence and so would organise an appropriate bike.
If the insurance company didn't know/record it (as I've heard you get no discount for being on 33hp, so maybe it's sometimes not recorded) then I'd have thought some of the blame lies with them for arranging said bike.
I think a court would find it hard to believe he didn't know he was on a full power bike, if he tries to play that!
Alpinestarhero
03-05-07, 08:27 AM
Exceptionaly hard to beleive; a 1000cc bike restricted would be very gutless indeed!
Matt
New Leaf
03-05-07, 09:06 AM
oh dear - i hope your friend has deep pockets - repairs to a cbr1000 and to the third party car isn't going to be cheap. Still he should save few quid on bike running costs whilst he is disqualified.:smt073
What Im confused about is why he got a 1000cc bike. Thought they did like for like in bike hire - I got a CBF600 for the CBR600. Please dont say he's not been straight on that score either? :(
Its taken me 6 years of riding to be ready to move up to the CBF. And at 114 bhp its still not that powerful a bike compared to the supersports. Unfortunately your mate has found out that its still got enough ooomph to get him into trouble when his brain switches off.
End of the day it was his responsibility to ensure he was properly insured and licensed to ride the bike. Well just got my insurance through from MCE and the very large caveat on it was exactly that - it is MY responsibility to ensure my licence covers the bike Im on, or the bike is appropriate to my licence. Theres no way anyones going to accept he took delivery of a 1000cc bike and presumed it to be restricted - he should have asked.
Very least, uninsured and unlicensed. Still, going to be very expensive lesson for him and for being so daft is probably going to end up not being able to get cheap insurance for a very long time for a bike.
Unfortunately your mate has found out that its still got enough ooomph to get him into trouble when his brain switches off.
See, from the evidence presented so far, I'd argue that his circuits are seriously badly earthed.
I'd be supprised if he got ignition. The fuel pumps & sparks are merely a dream. Hell, if he hits the kill switch it probably would!
adamfool
03-05-07, 09:40 AM
Personally, I hope they throw the book at him. The more people like him off the roads the better. Not only for riding a machine when he has no legal right to do so, but also for his riding style on said machine.
I couldnt agree more. let's jusy say this isnt the first time he's done something this stupid on a bike, as demonstrated by the mangled mess that was his first sv!
adamfool
03-05-07, 09:46 AM
What Im confused about is why he got a 1000cc bike. Thought they did like for like in bike hire - I got a CBF600 for the CBR600. Please dont say he's not been straight on that score either? :(
Its taken me 6 years of riding to be ready to move up to the CBF. And at 114 bhp its still not that powerful a bike compared to the supersports. Unfortunately your mate has found out that its still got enough ooomph to get him into trouble when his brain switches off.
End of the day it was his responsibility to ensure he was properly insured and licensed to ride the bike. Well just got my insurance through from MCE and the very large caveat on it was exactly that - it is MY responsibility to ensure my licence covers the bike Im on, or the bike is appropriate to my licence. Theres no way anyones going to accept he took delivery of a 1000cc bike and presumed it to be restricted - he should have asked.
Very least, uninsured and unlicensed. Still, going to be very expensive lesson for him and for being so daft is probably going to end up not being able to get cheap insurance for a very long time for a bike.
according to him, they had loaned out all 600's so they 'upraded' him to the CBF.
as for his brain switching off... i'm still waiting for they day it's switched on! :p
the_lone_wolf
03-05-07, 09:51 AM
I couldnt agree more. let's jusy say this isnt the first time he's done something this stupid on a bike, as demonstrated by the mangled mess that was his first sv!
sounds like a year or two with no license would do him some good, plus with driving without license/insurance or even dangerous driving on his record insurance is going to be pricy when he does get it back
hence the temptation is not to bother, and the cycle continues...:rolleyes:
Flamin_Squirrel
03-05-07, 09:53 AM
Just wondering, there isn't any garuntee that he'll be investigated by the insurance co. is there? If he's lucky and they don't maybe he'll still get away with it?
adamfool
03-05-07, 09:56 AM
Just wondering, there isn't any garuntee that he'll be investigated by the insurance co. is there? If he's lucky and they don't maybe he'll still get away with it?
when i had an accident back in '05, the first thing the third party's insurance company did was ask for copies of both parts of my licence, so i assume the same will happen here.
Ceri JC
03-05-07, 09:57 AM
sounds like a year or two with no license would do him some good, plus with driving without license/insurance or even dangerous driving on his record insurance is going to be pricy when he does get it back
hence the temptation is not to bother, and the cycle continues...:rolleyes:
My POV. Whilst I in no way condone the chap's actions and would be glad to see him off the road, I cannot help but feel that in a society where (for many people) driving is a neccessity, rather than a luxury, a ban followed by exhorbitant insurance costs for the following few years could see matey boy being convicted again, for driving whilst banned and/or uninsured, in the not too distant future.
Think its now standard to ask for copy of licence on a claim - has been with the SV. If so, he's going to be buggered. Either way, he deserves it simply to get him off a bike as hes a liability waiting to happen. Id rather he didnt happen to anyone else tbh.
Sounds like the sort of guy that even if he did lose his license, he would still ride ..... makes no odds to these type of people how many rules they break. As far as the loan company ..... I have always had to show my license to even test ride a bike for 20 mins, so I don't know how he pulled that one off (oh er!).
He deserves all he gets imho ..... but what he will get I'm not sure.
This is the mother in me, so humour me if you like, but I feel the need to just say to you mate, if you ride with him, and I am assuming you ride totally legal etc and you have an accident, do you think he will stop to check you are ok, or will he ride off because he is illegal, we need to stick together when biking, and if one person is not playing fair, maybe he shouldnt be played with.
Here endeth my mothering and lecturing, feel free to tell me to bog off ;)
Tomcat, I can tell you're back. That post is begging to be mis-quoted, and not the oo-er bit!
ASM-Forever
03-05-07, 10:28 AM
Bog off! :)
She has a point though....that said, in the thread title you put 'friend' not friend, so i guess he isnt a mate anyway.
northwind
03-05-07, 11:30 AM
My friend didnt tell the loan bike company that he had a 33bhp restriction on his licence, he said he had a "full licence":toss:
Definitions get tricky.. I don't think "full licence" is a legally defined term, is it? What we think of as a full licence is just a licence with full bike entitlements, whereas his is a licence with less bike entitlements... So it might be that he's not technically done anything wrong in the declarations stage. But the moment he rode off on the bike it stops being so important. I think the hire company have screwed up a bit too, but the actual offence is his.
The hire firm's insurers might well have conditions requiring the hire firm to ensure that any users have the right entitlements... That's common with similiar situations, or was a couple of years ago anyway. Which makes things interesting if they do, because while your friend's still committed the driving offences the insurance would have a perfectly valid claim against the hire company.
Gordon B
03-05-07, 11:43 AM
My tuppence.
It will be all the other considerate riders who end up paying for this eejits mistakes with even higher insurance premiums.
Can't work out how I can not make a claim each year and yet the price keeps going up.
Then I read posts like this one......:hackedoff: :smt062:smt071:smt068
Throw the book at him I say, I for one am sick and tired of subsidising other peoples f**k ups.....
Rant over.
'Friend' or friend, he sounds a complete numpty, pleased I'm not associated with him. Tomcat says it all really, I wouldn't want to rely on him given the evidence so far.
'Book' and 'throw' come to mind.
1000cc muscle machine is bad enough just as well they didn't get him a scooter he'd be really lethal!!:smt103
adamfool
03-05-07, 01:00 PM
This is the mother in me, so humour me if you like, but I feel the need to just say to you mate, if you ride with him, and I am assuming you ride totally legal etc and you have an accident, do you think he will stop to check you are ok, or will he ride off because he is illegal, we need to stick together when biking, and if one person is not playing fair, maybe he shouldnt be played with.
Here endeth my mothering and lecturing, feel free to tell me to bog off ;)
no no, thats a totally valid point, and i appreciate you mentioning it! Funnily enough, its the exact same point i brought up after his last big off, as watching him slide down a dual carrageway face first was not fun! Myself and many others that i usually ride with simply refuse to ride with him, and have done for several months now. If he wants to have intimate encounters with solid objects then thats his choice:smt103 ;) , but i'm damned if he's taking me with him!
In reality, he needs something that will force him to stop and think. Obviously crashing repeatedly hasn't done the job, so hopefullly a ban will, before he hurts someone else.
Alpinestarhero
03-05-07, 01:04 PM
no no, thats a totally valid point, and i appreciate you mentioning it! Funnily enough, its the exact same point i brought up after his last big off, as watching him slide down a dual carrageway face first was not fun! Myself and many others that i usually ride with simply refuse to ride with him, and have done for several months now. If he wants to have intimate encounters with solid objects then thats his choice:smt103 ;) , but i'm damned if he's taking me with him!
In reality, he needs something that will force him to stop and think. Obviously crashing repeatedly hasn't done the job, so hopefullly a ban will, before he hurts someone else.
Perhaps you and your freinds should have a stirn talking to him. Does he know he dosnt get invited out because of his riding? If i had a freind like that, i would be quick to say "you aint coming with us because your too dangerous". Its far better vfor everyone to say these things right away, so the offending party can either (1) sod off and endanger his life alone or (2) make amends and become a safer rider.
It may be worth getting him along to a BikeSafe thing or some sort of advanced riding whatsit?
Him getting banned wont change him, he'll just see it as another thing to gloat about, if he is the type of chap I envisage him to be!
Matt
The next bike he gets, do everyone a favour & confiscate his spark plugs!
adamfool
03-05-07, 01:12 PM
Perhaps you and your freinds should have a stirn talking to him. Does he know he dosnt get invited out because of his riding? If i had a freind like that, i would be quick to say "you aint coming with us because your too dangerous". Its far better vfor everyone to say these things right away, so the offending party can either (1) sod off and endanger his life alone or (2) make amends and become a safer rider.
It may be worth getting him along to a BikeSafe thing or some sort of advanced riding whatsit?
Him getting banned wont change him, he'll just see it as another thing to gloat about, if he is the type of chap I envisage him to be!
Mattwe've all tried the talking to bit, made no difference at all!
Even gave his dad the blunt truth (he that controls the purse strings and all that!!) but that didnt work, neither did telling him exactly why he wasn't invited any more. i think he's choosing option 1!!
We got him to go to a bikesafe, but of course he was riding nice and slowly, with the only critism being his choice of lines in corners. He then proceeded to keep riding like a pillock about 20 mins after it finished!
I think your image of him is pretty much spot on Matt!
I hate to say there's no hope of making a difference....
Alpinestarhero
03-05-07, 01:19 PM
Well, leave him be, don't have anything to do with him. One day, his accident will be your accident, and possibly your other mates!
I dont have the time of day for people like that.
Ah well
Matt
KnightRider
03-05-07, 02:57 PM
Idiot....nuf said
slippery
03-05-07, 04:40 PM
Hi, unless the police are involved I can't see why he would have any problem with loosing his licence. The police don't get involved in road traffic accidents unless there is an injury.
I would think that he would have at the very least third party cover, either from the company that lent him the bike or more likely his own insurance policy under driving other vehicles. The fact that he did not have the correct licence is neither here nor there as far as the third party insurance is concerned. The two insurance companies with probably have a great time debating who should foot the bill though!! But eventually one will pay up. If you speak insurance there is also something called DIR, or something like that, and it basically enforces an insurer to take responsibility for TP losses. The insurer would then be able to take the rider to court to recover their losses as he quite rightly should not have been riding the bike in the first place.
If he is 1 and has very little obvious assets then I would imagine that the insurers wouldn't bother. They would cancel his current policy with no pro rata refund and then refuse to insure him again. He would then be obliged to declare this to other prospective insurers who would be less than keen to take his business for less than a kings ransome.
This would have been the case ten years ago when I worked in the trade and things may have changed since then. We will all end up paying for it in the end through our premiums though no matter what happens.
Samnooshka
03-05-07, 05:10 PM
What a **** plain and simple, riders like him really make my blood boil.
He seems like the bloke that even if he did get a ban he would gloat about it and probably still ride without a license (think this has been said in another reply)... it ain't ilegal unless you get caught is it... well thats what i can see him saying.
I would think that he would have at the very least third party cover, either from the company that lent him the bike or more likely his own insurance policy under driving other vehicles.
Er I dont think thats correct. By riding the bike beyond his licence he invalidates ALL his insurance. I suggest you check your t&c - and I bet, like mine, theres that whacking great caveat that says if you ride a bike youre not licensed for you invalidate the whole policy. Or maybe its just MCE but I cant believe its only my insurers that take that pov.
Frankly I already feel sorry for the next person he happens to. :hackedoff:
Flamin_Squirrel
03-05-07, 09:00 PM
Er I dont think thats correct. By riding the bike beyond his licence he invalidates ALL his insurance. I suggest you check your t&c - and I bet, like mine, theres that whacking great caveat that says if you ride a bike youre not licensed for you invalidate the whole policy. Or maybe its just MCE but I cant believe its only my insurers that take that pov.
Frankly I already feel sorry for the next person he happens to. :hackedoff:
It IS correct. You can't invalidate the third party portion of an insurance policy.
northwind
03-05-07, 09:08 PM
Yup, third party liability cover specifically can't be invalidated by the insured party. But the insurers can try to recover costs in the event of fraud or negligence.
slippery
04-05-07, 07:11 AM
You won't find this sort of cover in you policy details but it does exist. I would have to read up on my insurance law to give you the details but the TP should be OK although it will take a while.
You would be surprised how much TP cover you have on a motor insurance policy but don't forget that the insurers can look to you personally to recover their losses following the claim.
MiniMatt
04-05-07, 08:20 AM
Stupid yes, but in reality not much more than everyone does in their youth (of course, if he's past "youth" status then perhaps I'd be less lenient). I personally got done for speeding on the M69 motorway at age 18 on a 125cc (I was so proud, wanted to frame that!); I kinda forgot to mention to the copper that pulled me that I was only on a provisional licence at the time, shouldn't have even been on the motorway and somehow must have left my L-plates at home. Somehow, through insane good luck, I got away with all that and was just left with the speeding offense. I consider that my "stupid act of youth" and subsequently took the test (pre-DAS era) and got legal.
So you're mate is a bit dim for sure, but in my mind not worthy of hanging, drawing & quartering just yet.
As for advice, I'd just say neglect to draw attention to the fact, he *might* get away with the already considerable penalties that'll be coming his way. But never lie to try to get away from it, if you're caught then the game is up, lieing will just make it ten times worse.
muffles
04-05-07, 08:36 AM
You won't find this sort of cover in you policy details but it does exist. I would have to read up on my insurance law to give you the details but the TP should be OK although it will take a while.
You would be surprised how much TP cover you have on a motor insurance policy but don't forget that the insurers can look to you personally to recover their losses following the claim.
Do you know much/work in insurance law? I remember something about completely uninsured drivers, basically any accidents have are covered (3rd party) by the last insurance company they were with (subject to x years ago?). Obviously there's a fair few cases of people having to pay out of their own pocket from uninsured drivers so I think it may have only applied to certain drivers - maybe commercial?
Any idea what law I'm thinking of here?
SV650Racer
04-05-07, 08:37 AM
If this was a car driver that didnt have a licence to drive what he was in at the time i am sure most on here would want them hung drawn and banged up. No difference really.
I just hope he has learnt his lesson.
MiniMatt
04-05-07, 08:45 AM
If this was a car driver that didnt have a licence to drive what he was in at the time i am sure most on here would want them hung drawn and banged up. No difference really.
Very good point. I suppose the only difference is the post-test restriction you get on bikes these days but not on cars. I dunno, I kinda think the restriction is a bad idea (or at least should be equalised and apply to cars too) but that is admittedly coloured by my own (pre-DAS) experience where for the first couple of years simple economics prevented me from getting anything above about 50bhp anyway.
Certainly not trying to defend the prat tho :)
The way I read the TPO insurance debate is thus:
Assume I have an accident on my own bike, which is completely my fault. For some reason or another (uninformed modifications lets say for sake of argument), my insurance company invalidate my insurance.
The guy (or girl) that I hit, at this point, would be up a rather smelly river. Unless that is, my insurance company honours the TPO section of my policy. In this example, why should a third party loose out?
Having said that, in this example, the third party would be the car indicating right. They were undertaking a perfectly legal, and lets assume perfectly safe, move. They were indicating before moving, and I assume the looked too. But I only have the information in this thread to go on.
So, the hire bike will have it's own hire type insurance policy. This policy will cover the losses of the car, because of the obligation to third parties. Their vehicle (even though insurance is invalidated by lack of appropriate licence) was involved in an accident. There was a legally binding contract for hire use to the person riding, so the hire company insurance really have no get out.
The hire shop is now out of pocket to the tune of one bike, because the insurance company aren't interested in paying this. They will more than likely attempt to recover losses from the rider, whether or not he can afford this, well, that's for the courts to settle IMO.
During that court case, the issue of his licence may well arise. This is not a civil matter (whereas the recovery of losses would be). This is a criminal matter, and I wouldn't be supprised if the police wanted to talk to him when this came out. Byebye licence.
Meanwhile, his own insurance company get wind of this, and cancel his insurance & refuse to take more money from him.
Here we have yet another example of "it's cheaper for me to get caught being naughty."
muffles
04-05-07, 09:01 AM
The guy (or girl) that I hit, at this point, would be up a rather smelly river. Unless that is, my insurance company honours the TPO section of my policy.
I believe it's set in law, an insurance company cannot refuse to honour a 3rd party claim. I think the problem arises when they aren't insured at all.
There's also the question I raised above but I can't honestly remember what exactly I read so it's all very hazy and it's unlikely to mean that we'd always be able to claim from someone if we were to be hit by a (currently) uninsured driver!
MiniMatt
04-05-07, 09:10 AM
All insurers (and hence all insurers' customers) pay a levy to the motor insurance bureau which holds a fund to be claimed against by the victims of uninsured and non-traceable third parties. From what I understand, it's a pain in the **** to claim against and they awards are substantially less than you'd get from a real policy.
Not a lawyer (or an insurance salesman) but I was also under the impression that the third party part of the policy can always be claimed against by a third party, the insurer would subsequently try to recover funds from the invalidated policy holder.
Ok have insurance docs in front of me [bikes in for service today so got the pack with everything in with me ;)]
IMPORTANT NOTE: This contract of insurance does not cover claims arising from anyone riding including you, who does not hold a valid driving licence, and CBT certificate if required in accordance with current legislation. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure you have the appropriate licence for the motor cycle you wish to insure
Now to me thats pretty clear cut - if I ride a bike I dont have a valid licence for that invalidates the contract of insurance totally and they are stating it DOES NOT COVER such claims. I cant believe MCE would be the only company with this clause. Either way, yes he may have some 3rd party cover via MIB but certainly he would have invalidated completely the insurance contract on the CBF by not complying with legislation and having a licence entitling him to ride it unrestricted.
???
I'm with lyn on this one and I suspect the insurer will refuse to pay. If friend is prosecuted for no insurance then I see the shop being prosecuted too for aiding and abetting.
Some people really don't have the brains they were born with. Deserves everything coming, IMO.
Flamin_Squirrel
04-05-07, 10:46 AM
...certainly he would have invalidated completely the insurance contract on the CBF by not complying with legislation and having a licence entitling him to ride it unrestricted...
The contract between the insured and the insurer has indeed been broken, which is why the insurer will be entitled to sue the hell out of him. Doesn't mean that they (the insurer) gets out of their TP obligations though. The person who this guy hit should get the insurance money, without the MIB being involved.
DanAbnormal
04-05-07, 10:46 AM
He may as well kiss his license goodbye. Deservedly so too.
What a dam fool. :D
I can see this going very ugly for your “friend” in Civil Court.
The hire companies insurance will not pay out, they will have put in the policy that hirers must be qualified and that it’s the hire company’s responsibility to check.
The 3rd persons insurance will seek to recover the cost from the hire company.
The hire company will seek to recover cost the cost of their bike and the cost of the 3rd party first from your “friends” insurance company, they will reject the claim the same as the hirer’s own insurance company.
The hire company will then seek to recover all the cost from your “mate”
Your mates insurance company (now informed of all this mess) can attempt to reject the claim for you mates trashed SV.
Somewhere in all this the realisation that there is also a criminal case to be answered will dawn, and the police will be informed. As it’s a clear case and there is little investigation needed on the part of the police they will pass all the evidence straight to the prosecutors.
Deserves it all IMO and it will be a long process.
slippery
04-05-07, 12:40 PM
Do you know much/work in insurance law? I remember something about completely uninsured drivers, basically any accidents have are covered (3rd party) by the last insurance company they were with (subject to x years ago?). Obviously there's a fair few cases of people having to pay out of their own pocket from uninsured drivers so I think it may have only applied to certain drivers - maybe commercial?
Any idea what law I'm thinking of here?
Hi used to work in motor claims about 10 years ago but still remember some of it. I think that you are talking about the MIB as already mentioned. In this example as the idiot has insurance of some kindand has been indentified so the MIB will not be involved. I am almost cerain that claims via the MIB are only for injury only. This is a last resort and can take years to resolve and is really for pedestrian hit and run type accidents. All subscribing insurers contribut a % of their income to the fund each year.
Basically the insurers will try and throw it out, delay for ages and then the TP will get some sort of legal representation that will start talking insurance talk. The insurers will get a flow chart out and one of them will finally have to pay for the TP damage, reluctantly of course. The main problem is that the longer this goes on the more expensive the whole case becomes and the higher the total claim. End result higher premiums for the rest of us legal companies getting fatter.
Cheers
beniryu
04-05-07, 12:44 PM
He'll be looking at points & a fine at least. IIRC, driving without insurance carries a minimum of 6 points. So if he's passed his test within the last 2 years, say byebye to his licence & he can start again, if he's lucky enough to not have a ban.
Would this still apply if he passed a car test at 17 which has now passed the 2 year period? Looking on the DVLA site it just says 2 years from passing a 'first test' so if he's held a full car license for 2 years would the 2 year period start all over again for his bike test?
Would this still apply if he passed a car test at 17 which has now passed the 2 year period? Looking on the DVLA site it just says 2 years from passing a 'first test' so if he's held a full car license for 2 years would the 2 year period start all over again for his bike test?
I passed my bike test in July last year. I passed my car test when I was 18, I'm now 24. If I get 6 points on my licence, regardless of which vehicle I'm driving, the DVLA revoke my licence. Then I'm not licenced to drive the car, or ride the bike.
HTH
beniryu
04-05-07, 01:02 PM
I passed my bike test in July last year. I passed my car test when I was 18, I'm now 24. If I get 6 points on my licence, regardless of which vehicle I'm driving, the DVLA revoke my licence. Then I'm not licenced to drive the car, or ride the bike.
HTH
But surely your bike test is a second test. Your car being the first :)
Doesn't matter. My interpretation is that they revoke the licence if its within two years of a test pass. They don't revoke entitlements either, it's the whole licence.
SoulKiss
04-05-07, 01:03 PM
I passed my bike test in July last year. I passed my car test when I was 18, I'm now 24. If I get 6 points on my licence, regardless of which vehicle I'm driving, the DVLA revoke my licence. Then I'm not licenced to drive the car, or ride the bike.
HTH
Wrong Baph
You would be ok.
All you got was an extra entitlement, not a new license.
David
Agree with soulkiss Baph, its from your first test. You may interpret it to be from your bike test but as soulkiss said, all youve done is added an entitlement your licence was issued at the first test so the time runs from then.
Ceri JC
04-05-07, 02:09 PM
lynw is right you know. Carsick's still being on the road is proof of this. ;)
I'll stick to my thinking. Good news eh SoulKiss? tut tut! ;)
Can anyone imagine what my riding would be like otherwise? :lol:
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.