Urgent insurance question... SV650.org has saved the day!!!
 

Hi all...

4 months after starting a claim for the theft of my old Vespa T5 Classic and endless letters to and from the insurers, (Zenith, through Devitt brokers) I've just got off the phone after them telling me they're not going to pay because it wasn't MOTd.

I told them this when it was stolen. It WAS taxed, so still parked on the road and I gave them a receipt for servicing and repair of the rear wheel hub and told them that I was going to get it MOTd, that was why I had reinsured it!

I've told them that I'm not accepting this, that I was never asked to provide proof of MOT at the time I took the policy out and that the policy doesn't state that the vehicle must be MOTd.

They want me to send them a copy of the (Devitt) policy.

I've just had a read through it and in the general conditions it says:
"you shall maintain your motorcycle in efficient and roadworthy condition..."

Do you think this is grouinds for voiding the policy for having no MOT, even though the vehicle wasn't being ridden?

anyone have any similar problems or a solution to these b'stards trying to fob me off with nothing?

:x

when my bro gets back ill try to remind him about this hes an insurance guru..however if it was parked on the road..then they may have a case mate is my initial thoughts...

ill wait for my bro though

Andy

Have a look through the construction and use regulations. If they strongly link a valid MoT certificate with being roadworthy then you might have a problem. If they're completely separate offenses (which I believe they are) then I reckon you could win.

What a load of crap.

MOT is only a indication of road worthyness at the point of MOT and should only realy be used in the event of an accedent, they are trying their luck.

They are trying to milk their contracts. Mabey a case for the Insurance Ombardsman or CAB.

No it isnt. Its a legal requirement that a vehicle over 3 years old is to be in possesion of a valid MOT. If the vehicle is not MOT'd then it should not be ridden or kept on a public highway and be kept off the road unless it is being taken to a pre-booked MOT.

Thats da law...so i was told.

So Sadly your insurance company may be in the right.

I faced the same dilemma when my car got hit by some idiot coming out of a side road. After the incident I realised that my MOT had run out a week earlier, but when making the claim neither my nor the 3rd partys' insurance companies asked for it :) .....so I think TSM is right in saying that they might be trying it on.

It was not being ridden, so realy the insurance is realy only covering the theft part of the insurance in this case. As such the MOT should not be part of the issue.

The insurance company are not there to inforce the law.

It seems by what they said that even if the bike was off the road they would have not covered him as the bike still had no MOT, its their interpritation of the contract vs yours.

Sounds dodgy. The logical reason that it should be MOT'd/roadworthy is so that if you are riding around on a wreck of a bike, with ineffective brakes and bald tyres, you then can't claim off them when you inevitably crash it. It seems they're using this (reasonable) caveat to try to wriggle out of something unrelated; theft. If anything, the bike being in a poor state of repairs is likely to make it less nickable (less desirable and harder to ride away)!

Was thinking the same thing. The annoying thing is that if it were the other way round, e.g. you'd just fitted something shiny and hadn't got as far as the phone to tell them, then they'd use it as an excuse not to pay out for theft.

Mrs Basket, who is an authority on these things says

'No, it just means they will deduct a certain amount from the money you are offered'

and

'Yeah, they will try that, tell him to ask them for the insurance ombudsmans address because he is making a complaint. That'll make them act and quick'

She thinks they are having a giraffe at your expense.