Don't forget to cancel your insurance.

[Grant66]

Apologies if this is a Hitler post. I didn't know this could happen. May save somebody some hassle.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/loc...ident-1.554725

[Sid Squid]

When the law allows this utter, utter disgrace it's not surprising that so many people have no respect for the law.

[squirrel_hunter]

This is a very worrying and interesting story.

his insurance firm MCE Insurance is liable for the crash and can claim the costs from him in court.

The first thing here is that MCE could claim the costs from him in court. After the publicity that this story is I expect getting, I would be surprised if they do. However that remains to be seen.

But what I would be interested in is an explanation as to why MCE is liable, and thus why they can recover the costs from the previous owner?

Going on the article explains it as:

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

I understand that he could be in breach of contract if for example he allowed someone to ride a his bike who didn't have insurance, but I would have to see that written down. For example someone test rides the bike you are selling, they tell you they have insurance and even show you the document, but they haven't paid their premium and they are uninsured. Are you now liable, you would have taken reasonable steps to check that the rider was insured? Thus the reasonable step taken here is that the bike was sold and no longer under his possession or ownership?

And that then makes me wonder how can someone give permission to something they do not own?

[JulesW]

This makes no sense to me at all, very interesting nonetheless.

[DJ123]

[QUOTE=squirrel_hunter;2977045]

But what I would be interested in is an explanation as to why MCE is liable, and thus why they can recover the costs from the previous owner?



QUOTE]

IIRC all insurance companies must pay out on a 3rd party basis. Even if your vehicle is stolen & used in a ram raid, cause damage to property they are liable to pay for the damages. This is what I remember, unsure if this is still the case or how much of it they are obliged to cover.

[squirrel_hunter]

I see how MCE might then be liable using the stolen ram raid example. But if my vehicle was stolen and used in a ram raid I wouldn't expect my insurance company to come back to me and ask me to pay for it. Isn't that one of the reasons I have insurance?

[DJ123]

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

I see how MCE might then be liable using the stolen ram raid example. But if my vehicle was stolen and used in a ram raid I wouldn't expect my insurance company to come back to me and ask me to pay for it. Isn't that one of the reasons I have insurance?

As they say, its on a technicality. I don't know the full ins & outs of what's lawful, enforceable or likely. No doubt there is legislation that contradicts itself somewhere along the line as to who is liable to pay the claim.

[DarrenSV650S]

I would have thought the most he would have to pay is his excess price. Even that is outrageous though

[Bibio]

i think MCN have gotten their end of the stick wrong as from what i know the car driver should be claiming from the uninsured drivers fund. technically the bike was insured but the rider/driver was not. i think the biggest problem is that very few people can actually prove that they own a vehicle and i think this is where MCN are trying to push their luck.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

I see how MCE might then be liable using the stolen ram raid example. But if my vehicle was stolen and used in a ram raid I wouldn't expect my insurance company to come back to me and ask me to pay for it. Isn't that one of the reasons I have insurance?

Quite a bit different though. This vehicle wasn't stolen - he handed over the keys.

The law demands a cascade of responsible Road Traffic Act insurers so, if the new owner wasn't insured, then the sellers policy is next in line if it hasn't been cancelled. His insurers are obliged by law to pay the third party damages. The MIB are behind them in the cascade order.

So, in this case, that's all fair and equitable for the Yaris driver and tough luck for the poor old insurer. Unfortunately the unintended consequence of the legislation is that the bike seller is now in breach of his contract with his insurers and, technically, they have a civil right of recovery against him.

I've never heard of an insurer actually doing this in the type of circumstances described but it remains a possibility hanging over this chaps head for a while yet.

This is happening to more and more people now that all current policies are on the MID and easy to trace.

So, yes, definitely cancel your insurance.