corij:
anyone know how insurance works if it turns out youre drunk or have no licence at the time of a wreck. i was thinking how do the family get compo ? who pays for the wrecker
a few years back id parked half on a pavement and half on double yellows and a copper told me if anyone ran into me the insurance would be invalid as i was illegally parked .
The way I understand that it works is that the insurance company are responsible for paying out for your misdemeanors until they have cancelled your insurance. So, in the case of a drunk driver who kills / injures someone they will have to cough up any damages due to the injured person, but as soon as they knew about that incident they could choose to end your cover from them on because you had broken their terms and conditions by not driving within the law. I am not sure if they could seek to recover the money they had paid out to the injured parties from the drunk driver though, I suspect they do not.
An insurer cannot refuse a 3rd party claim on the grounds that the policyholder was acting illegally or not complying with the Ts & Cs of the policy. What they can do (and in many cases will do) is pay out the 3rd party claim then recover the money from the policyholder.
End result is almost the same, in that the policyholder ends up footing the bill.
Roymondo:
An insurer cannot refuse a 3rd party claim on the grounds that the policyholder was acting illegally or not complying with the Ts & Cs of the policy. What they can do (and in many cases will do) is pay out the 3rd party claim then recover the money from the policyholder.
End result is almost the same, in that the policyholder ends up footing the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
If that’s the case it could see the end of Aim logistics as a company, if the extended families of the eight deceased start making claims that Aim have to foot the bill for then it could run into millions
Roymondo:
An insurer cannot refuse a 3rd party claim on the grounds that the policyholder was acting illegally or not complying with the Ts & Cs of the policy. What they can do (and in many cases will do) is pay out the 3rd party claim then recover the money from the policyholder.
End result is almost the same, in that the policyholder ends up footing the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
If that’s the case it could see the end of Aim logistics as a company, if the extended families of the eight deceased start making claims that Aim have to foot the bill for then it could run into millions
Don’t see why - AIM (as policyholders) have not been convicted of any offence regarding this incident.
Roymondo:
An insurer cannot refuse a 3rd party claim on the grounds that the policyholder was acting illegally or not complying with the Ts & Cs of the policy. What they can do (and in many cases will do) is pay out the 3rd party claim then recover the money from the policyholder.
End result is almost the same, in that the policyholder ends up footing the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Do you actually know of any cases where that has actually happened ? Would be interested to know.
Roymondo:
An insurer cannot refuse a 3rd party claim on the grounds that the policyholder was acting illegally or not complying with the Ts & Cs of the policy. What they can do (and in many cases will do) is pay out the 3rd party claim then recover the money from the policyholder.
End result is almost the same, in that the policyholder ends up footing the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
If that’s the case it could see the end of Aim logistics as a company, if the extended families of the eight deceased start making claims that Aim have to foot the bill for then it could run into millions
Don’t see why - AIM (as policyholders) have not been convicted of any offence regarding this incident.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
You don’t have to be convicted of any offence for someone to make a claim against your insurance in the event of a accident and if the insurance company deem you were not acting in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policy then they may refuse to meet the claim, then the policy holder is open to being sued by the claimants.
Roymondo:
An insurer cannot refuse a 3rd party claim on the grounds that the policyholder was acting illegally or not complying with the Ts & Cs of the policy. What they can do (and in many cases will do) is pay out the 3rd party claim then recover the money from the policyholder.
End result is almost the same, in that the policyholder ends up footing the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Do you actually know of any cases where that has actually happened ? Would be interested to know.
Not for simple illegal acts (e.g. speeding) which don’t actually break any Ts & Cs. But I have seen it where e.g. a motorcycle policyholder a “No passengers carried” clause which saved a good few quid on his premium. When he binned it with his mate on the back the insurers had to pay out for the passenger’s injuries but afterwards they successfully sued the policyholder.
They would pay out to any other party’s involved but wouldn’t pay out to you if you had fully comp insurance on a private policy but could sue you for there loses.
Not sure how that would work with a company though
kr79:
They would pay out to any other party’s involved but wouldn’t pay out to you if you had fully comp insurance on a private policy but could sue you for there loses.
Not sure how that would work with a company though
Company could possibly claim for the uninsured loss on public liability insurance?
Enough of us have experienced finding unwarned of stationary vehicles in the live lanes of so called smart motorways to know that the warning system doesn’t work, this will come as a surprise to…er no one…that the Brits can spend bloody £billions on electronic garbage that proves about as much use as a chocolate teapot once paid for, but not to worry lads there’s another few sunbeds in Barbados occupied for the coming few years by yet another bloody snake oil sales team
Apparently the bod being interviewed by Sputnik also wants the refuge areas shutting permanetly, quite how that’s supposed to help the situation i’d be interested to know.
Enough of us have experienced finding unwarned of stationary vehicles in the live lanes of so called smart motorways to know that the warning system doesn’t work, this will come as a surprise to…er no one…that the Brits can spend bloody £billions on electronic garbage that proves about as much use as a chocolate teapot once paid for, but not to worry lads there’s another few sunbeds in Barbados occupied for the coming few years by yet another bloody snake oil sales team
Apparently the bod being interviewed by Sputnik also wants the refuge areas shutting permanetly, quite how that’s supposed to help the situation i’d be interested to know.
Not how I read it Juddian
“Our view is that there is a need for additional capacity in our congested nation and this is the most cost-effective way of doing it. But we have genuine concerns about having no hard shoulders and we have pressed for the ERAs to be closer together,” Mr. Williams told Sputnik.
Enough of us have experienced finding unwarned of stationary vehicles in the live lanes of so called smart motorways to know that the warning system doesn’t work, this will come as a surprise to…er no one…that the Brits can spend bloody £billions on electronic garbage that proves about as much use as a chocolate teapot once paid for, but not to worry lads there’s another few sunbeds in Barbados occupied for the coming few years by yet another bloody snake oil sales team
Apparently the bod being interviewed by Sputnik also wants the refuge areas shutting permanetly, quite how that’s supposed to help the situation i’d be interested to know.
Not how I read it Juddian
“Our view is that there is a need for additional capacity in our congested nation and this is the most cost-effective way of doing it. But we have genuine concerns about having no hard shoulders and we have pressed for the ERAs to be closer together,” Mr. Williams told Sputnik.
Ah, i misread and it makes a lot more sense now , many thanks for that Pierrot.
Basically then a new hard shoulder near enough created, which is what should have been the case anyway, with two new lanes being added, making it 4 lane running with a permanent hard shoulder, obviously this couldn’t happen at the elevated sections because costs would finally bankrupt the country, but regarding the B’ham section in particular, the M6 toll should have been purchased for the country and been made a free road.
Enough of us have experienced finding unwarned of stationary vehicles in the live lanes of so called smart motorways to know that the warning system doesn’t work, this will come as a surprise to…er no one…that the Brits can spend bloody £billions on electronic garbage that proves about as much use as a chocolate teapot once paid for, but not to worry lads there’s another few sunbeds in Barbados occupied for the coming few years by yet another bloody snake oil sales team
Apparently the bod being interviewed by Sputnik also wants the refuge areas shutting permanetly, quite how that’s supposed to help the situation i’d be interested to know.
Not how I read it Juddian
“Our view is that there is a need for additional capacity in our congested nation and this is the most cost-effective way of doing it. But we have genuine concerns about having no hard shoulders and we have pressed for the ERAs to be closer together,” Mr. Williams told Sputnik.
Ah, i misread and it makes a lot more sense now , many thanks for that Pierrot.
Basically then a new hard shoulder near enough created, which is what should have been the case anyway, with two new lanes being added, making it 4 lane running with a permanent hard shoulder, obviously this couldn’t happen at the elevated sections because costs would finally bankrupt the country, but regarding the B’ham section in particular, the M6 toll should have been purchased for the country and been made a free road.
No problem mate, I had to read it a couple of times too in case it was me making the mistake.
I totally agree on your comment regarding the M6 Toll .
Enough of us have experienced finding unwarned of stationary vehicles in the live lanes of so called smart motorways to know that the warning system doesn’t work, this will come as a surprise to…er no one…that the Brits can spend bloody £billions on electronic garbage that proves about as much use as a chocolate teapot once paid for, but not to worry lads there’s another few sunbeds in Barbados occupied for the coming few years by yet another bloody snake oil sales team
I think you are being a bit hard on the technology side of it there. Putting in sensors that enable more warning to be given to drivers of obstructions ahead has got to be a good thing. That the technology is then badly managed is another issue. (Remember the thing on the M25 when variable speed limits were first introduced ? Speeding convictions had to be canceled because the police decided it was a good idea to randomly alter the limits for no reason other than to catch people speeding).
I think a lot of the sensors can be installed with just sawcuts into the road surface, granted the gantries are a bigger exercise.
I totally agree though about the no hard shoulder / intermittent hard shoulder running, it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Wagstaff found not-guilty of dangerous driving (death by careless is a less offence) by the jury, plus a discount for the early admission of responsibility, plus the early guilty plea to death by careless, plus the genuine remorse, plus previous good character, hence relatively short sentence.
The other gent on the other hand, had already had his vocational licence revoked for a string of previous offences, apparently turned up drunk, drank more when driving (two freshly-emptied cider cans rolling around in the cab), then denied having anything to do with it, then made up a story about being ill. Anyone who stops a vehicle, at night, on a live motorway lane for no reason and doesn’t even bother to put the hazards on is driving dangerously.
I think the judge is about right. Wagstaffe is a good man who did a bad thing. The other guy…well, put it this way they’d already taken his vocational licence off him for a good reason.
, many thanks for that Pierrot.