Insurance DISCUSSION

[Fair-Parking]

No Des - you cannot insure anything twice - that goes against the principle established in early insurance law over 300 years ago. The passing of that law prevented multiple claims for one loss. The idea that car must already have insurance is myth spread by this who cannot quite join up the dots when their beliefs that vehicles must be insured and hence appear on the motor insurance data base fall short of credibility.

Only last week and not the first time I prepared a defence for a man driving a friend's car which the police relied on the motor insurance data base and its production of registration numbers, instead of staying with the long lost skill of reading what the motor insurance certificate said

[des8]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

No Des - you cannot insure anything twice - that goes against the principle established in early insurance law over 300 years ago. The passing of that law prevented multiple claims for one loss. The idea that car must already have insurance is myth spread by this who cannot quite join up the dots when their beliefs that vehicles must be insured and hence appear on the motor insurance data base fall short of credibility.

Only last week and not the first time I prepared a defence for a man driving a friend's car which the police relied on the motor insurance data base and its production of registration numbers, instead of staying with the long lost skill of reading what the motor insurance certificate said

Don't want to clog up a thread with a lesson about insurance but re "you cannot insure anything twice", my answer is you can but can only be indemnified once!

look up "Double insurance and contribution"

Please give details of that "law " to which you refer.

[R0b]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

Only last week and not the first time I prepared a defence for a man driving a friend's car which the police relied on the motor insurance data base and its production of registration numbers, instead of staying with the long lost skill of reading what the motor insurance certificate said

I am intrigued by your stance and given this is a public forum where knowledge is shared, it would be helpful if you could post up a copy of the defence you prepared (personal information removed) as I would be curious to understand as to how and what you relied on in order to deflect any claim under the relevant law.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

I most certainly am not going to reveal any more details of a pending prosecution case. As for insurance law there are plenty of insurance reference books if you want to become more informed about a profession I joined in 1966. If you think that you can be insured twice and only paid once perhaps some might like show an example of this happening. No insurance company would knowingly accept a proposal and premium for cover if they knew that the object was covered elsewhere.

If anybody thinks I'm wrong on either of the above perhaps they might like to reveal on what is termed by one as a 'public forum' what their credentials are and what experience they have had in the motor insurance profession - and what court cases they have assisted on

A forum exists for an exchange of views or enlightenment from those with experience. If you don't wish to to believe what somebody with experience has to offer then don't believe them.

[R0b]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

You don't need to reveal details of the pending prosecution but presumably if you have been in the profession for that long (law or otherwise) then surely you must have provided similar defences to the current pending prosecution that you could share with? The reason I ask is because I do not understand how and why you believe that the OP has not committed any offence or has a solid defence to the claim.

The way I see it is, unless an exception applies in the RTA that the OP can rely on, there doesn't appear to be any defence. As you have suggested, a forum does exist to exchange views and share knowledge but at the moment you've only provided an opinion and your view without any conclusive evidence. If you are prepared to provide evidence to back up your opinion that would go some way to understanding your reasons.

[des8]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

So we both started in insurance about the sametime!
Qualified ACII (but not kept up subs since leaving the industry).

To say insurers would not knowingly accept a proposal on which there was an existing insurance is not the same as saying "you cannot insure anything twice"
In fact The Marine Insurance Act 1906 recognises that double insurance might be effected by setting out the manner of returning premiums (or not if the double insurance was effected knowingly!).
It does not state that an insured may not effect double insurance

" If you think that you can be insured twice and only paid once". Not sure what you are aiming at with that comment as it is true
Insurance is a contract of indemnity, and one cannot profit from it, hence if you over insure you will only be paid the value of your loss, and if there are two or more insurers each will contribute according to their proportions (in theory anyway!) and the insured only receives an indemnity for his loss.

So what is that 300 year old insurance law you mentioned?

[Fair-Parking]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

This thread started as a motor insurance query and now it is losing sight of what it was meant for. Who cares about marine insurance insurance, it has no relevance here? As an ACII you must know that a car cannot be insured twice that the indemnity cover is vested in the policyholder and others named on the policy.

As you have been around in insurance for nigh on 50 years you must remember the open motor certificates that quoted 'ANY vehicle the property of the policyholder etc etc....' which rather indicates that a specified vehicle was NOT required of the policy.

As for a 300 year old law - that was never said - what was quoted was not A 300 year old insurance law, but insurance law in general backed by the courts over the centuries.

The ACII will know about this history as this would have been part of his course and possibly his exams. The most popular style of insurance back then was fire insurance - again it has no relevance to the DVLA and police misreading the Road Traffic Act 1988 except that it established the principle that no property can legitimately be insured twice so as to prevent fraud

[des8]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

@Kati should we transfer this discussion to a separate thread?

Post 9 "The passing of that law...."
Post 17; "As for a 300 year old law - that was never said "

Post 17: "insurance law in general backed by the courts over the centuries."

Statutes and case law details please

I cannot recall any law or case which says one cannot effect dual insurance. There generally is no point to doing so, (although it does occur frequently in the construction trade and marine insurance where different agents may be involved) and is normally counter productive.
If one does effect two policies for the same risk either deliberately or accidentally, and it comes to pass that the insured event happens, one will only receive indemnity for the loss.


"open motor certificates that quoted 'ANY vehicle the property of the policyholder etc etc....' which rather indicates that a specified vehicle was NOT required of the policy."

The certificates (which are only evidence that third party liability policy was in existence) were open, but the policy schedule would spechify a vehicle.
Motor traders policy were perhaps the exception

[Kati]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

@Kati should we transfer this discussion to a separate thread?

yes!!!! (and I have done ) xx
[MENTION=39135]Fair-Parking[/MENTION] [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] (and you Des ) ... please try to keep this separate from the other thread :yo:

[Fair-Parking]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

As I came on here to assist with the Op's motor insurance query, I will not be entering into an general insurance discussion. I am also concerned that my name has been used in relation to creating this thread when I and the Op were the persons trying to keep the original thread within the bounds its original narrow context

[des8]

Re: Insurance DISCUSSION

oh dear!
Can't substantiate his opening statements and won't explain the basis of the "defence" he has used previously.
Hope Fair Parking reveals it to Pandion,whose post was not really an insurance query but about how to deal with DVLA single justice procedure notice.

[R0b]

Re: "Keeping" a Vehicle without insurance

I am also concerned that my name has been used in relation to creating this thread

What exactly are your concerns about being tagged in a thread?

In my view, your assistance into the OP's problem was vague and unhelpful. You suggested S.114(5)(b) needed to be read more closer (I assume you meant S.144B (5)(b) as there is section in the RTA you refer to) but you have failed to explain why it needed to be read more closely and/or what defence the OP may have against the alleged offence. You then suggested that you have successfully defended such claims the DVLA has made but provided nothing to show how the OP could defend it in their circumstances. The OP even carried out their own research and identified the CIE which makes it an offence to have no insurance for a vehicle unless it is declared off the road. You also did not comment on this point either.

For clarity, the CIE Regulations are called THE MOTOR VEHICLES (INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS)REGULATIONS 2011 which makes it an offence for the registered keeper to have no insurance i.e. they must have continuous insurance unless the exceptions in S.144B of the RTA apply. The Explanatory Note gives a brief description of the Regulations:

This instrument makes provision in relation to the offence under section 144Aof the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) of being the registered keeper of a vehicle which does not have insurance cover. It prescribes the particulars anddeclarations to be furnished for the purposes of exceptions to the offence, creates a new exception to the offence, provides for a reduced fixed penalty upon prompt payment and requires Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) data to be provided forenforcement purposes.

So, unless the OP can provide evidence that one of the numerous exceptions apply in S.144B then an offence will have been committed. Now, if you disagree with what the law says, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the OP can rely on to defend it using your decades of experience. Or perhaps your knowledge is out of date since the introduction of the CIE Regs, becuase prior to the CIE Regs, there didn't appear to be an offence committed of having no insurance if the car was off the road and not being used.