Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruffy
Not sure I can agree with this, especially the "knowingly" bit.
I would counter-argue like this:
1. My certificate of insurance has me (& my wife) specifically stated as the only permitted drivers.
2. So, my contract is scope defined. Any cover for others is excluded as far as I understand and so the implication that any other driver is entitled to cover under the policy appears to require me to have a detailed understanding of road traffic, insurance or other statutory legislation.
3. Ignorance may be no defence but I suggest that, if 2 is not true, then this is an unreasonable contract condition (either real or implied) as I am not professionally qualified in law and cannot be considered "expert".
4. An obligation to cancel under stipulated conditions should not be interpreted as a contractual entitlement to cover for other parties.
5. Therefore, I refute the validity of the contractual obligation being relied upon.
|
If I found myself in this situation I think I'd be going down a similar route.
I can't say how successful it would be as I can't find a single case. As I said, the insurers theoretically have a right of recovery against the policyholder but (quite rightly) they don't actually seem to pursue it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruffy
(BTW, Tam, I'm not picking on you personally but you appear to be the legally knowledgeable one in the thread so far, offering a theoretical justification for the reported possible action claimed in the OP report.)
|
No problem. I'm only trying to explain the situation. I'm certainly not justifying it.