My prat of a 'friend' (legal issue)

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.

Originally Posted by slippery

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SV650Racer

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."

Originally Posted by Baph

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!

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 ]

Originally Posted by MCE letter

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.

Originally Posted by lynw

...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.