OT: accident, who's at fault?

[Andy Burns]

You *used* to be able to buy a 'policy' that paid for a chauffeur if you lost your licence due to drunk driving.

[jgharston]

Not if plying without a license.

Maybe I worded it slightly unclearly. I was a member of a Licensing Board for most of the last decade. As soon as you ply for trade without a license all and every insurance coverage is completely and utterly voided regardless of any specifics or wording of the insurance policy itself. I've lost count of the number of drivers who've come before the Board and and complaing about being "done" for two offences - plying and having no insurance. Driver: But I had insurance! Board: No, by plying your insurance was voided.

Ply for trade without a license and have any sort of incident and it is uncovered, and the driver is fully, utterly and completely entirely fully liable for absolutely utterly everything.

JGH

[Jeff Gaines]

I'm not sure if that's the correct way of putting it. Your insurance certificate sets out who may drive and for what purpose, common exclusions for 'normal' use being racing, pace-making, rallying and use for hire or reward. Obviously it is possible to get cover for hire/reward but you need to specify it up front. Exceeding the speed limit or going through a red light are 'illegal' but won't invalidate your insurance.

[Steve Firth]

I think you're taking too wide a reading of what "invalidating insurance" may cover. Certainly anyone who operates an unlicensed taxi has invalidated their insurance, but I don't see any evidence that the insurer can duck third party claims. The only statements that I have seen on the matter, made by local authorities, is that unlicensed plying for hire *may* invalidate claims from third parties. However I suspect that statement comes down to responsibility for passengers and the nature of the contract between passenger and driver.

An insurer might well be able to argue that flagging down a minicab in the street means that the person doing so was aware or should have been aware that doing so means they are participating in an illegal act, hence they cannot be insured for the consequences of that act. However I can't see that they could argue that a person who is involved in a no-fault accident with a taxi illegally plying for hire, but insured, is barred from making a claim.

Have you any reference to a statute that supports the statements that you are making?

I think that statement is based on a misunderstanding. The general rule is that a person should not benefit from their own criminal act. However that does not mean that it is impossible to insure against the consequences of breaking the law. If that were so, the Medical Defence Union for one would be in deep trouble.

[Dave]

Does your comment apply to private land, like a car park?

Dave

[dennis]

If that includes the third party cover for injuries then who is going to pay the compensation to the innocent victims?

[Steve Firth]

No, I think you're wrong on that point, although I'm open to correction if you can cite the precedents. The passengers are mostly likely uninsured, the driver will be uninsured for the comprehensive aspects of cover but the third party insurance appears to be valid and cannot be waived in the manner you suggest.

The cases that you consider are *not* being held in a court of law, they are decisions of the Licensing Board which has the power to fine drivers

- in the cases that you are discussing they are fining the operators of mini-cabs who ply for hire.

[Steve Firth]

No, having reviewed this I'm now fairly convinced that what you say above is not correct.

It is correct that the passenger liability insurance for a mini-cab is invalidated if the driver plies for hire. This happens because:

1) Section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is what Licensing Boards and magistrates rely upon to state that an operator of a mini cab or private car who picks up passengers for hire or reward is permitting the vehicle to be used as a hackney carriage plying for hire ... without having obtained a licence as aforesaid for such carriage. 2) All Taxi policies carry a similar endorsement to this one: "We will not provide Insurance ... If the person claiming knows that the driver at the time of the Accident has never held a licence to drive the vehicle, or is disqualified from having such a licence."

Hence the passenger liability insurance is voided because the passenger is deemed to know that a mini cab picking up passengers who have not pre-booked is operating outside the terms of his licence and is therefore unlicenced and hence not in possession of passenger liability insurance.

[John MacLeod]

Not aware of specific legislation that puts a blanket obligation on them, but if there's any suggestion of injury or even shock, or if one driver declines to give details, or if there's any allegation that a road traffic offence has been committed, then there's an obligation on them to attend. In other words, if it happens on the public road, in practical terms they can't very well refuse. Though when they'll arrive is another question. If one declines to move vehicles from the scene until they arrive, then there'll pretty soon be a number of reports of obstruction on the road which is likely to bring them sharpish.

I was a qualified insurance underwriter in a former existence :-). They won't put it to you in these words, but that's what it boils down to. If you don't call the police, the best you can hope for is that your insurers will settle on a "knock for knock" basis. A mere exchange of details with the other party without calling the police is going to be construed as tantamount to an admission that both parties were equally to blame.

John

[John MacLeod]

Cops won't, in general, be interested in anything happening on private land. Almost impossible to get them to attend in those circumstances unless massive personal injuries involved.

John

[Tim Streater]

My comment may be incorrect, according to IIRC Ronald Raygun - he says I didn't read/interpret properly the statute at the tinyurl above. he may be right - I haven't checked it again.

[John MacLeod]

And the insurance companies are therefore likely to settle on a "knock for knock" basis, because there's been no independent investigation.

I've a very low opinion of the grunts. However, having said that, even the worst of them are likely to be capable of making a sketch map or describing in words the evidence they've found. And an insurance company is likely to pay a little more attention to that, if it confirms what their insured has said. Or for that matter, what the other insurance company's insured has said.

Precisely.

Face up to it -- if you don't get a police report, the best you're likely to get out it is a "knock for knock" settlement and you're quite liable to be deemed 100% to blame if the other guy thinks up a clever enough story and dreams up some "witnesses" who proceed to lie their heads off.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember John MacLeod saying something like:

Whoah. What a load of c*ck.

[John MacLeod]

Try to get anything settled on other than a knock for knock basis if you don't have a police report, and the chances are you'll soon find out :-(.

"Knock for knock" effectively means "We're not going to bother who's to blame on this one. It's a whole lot cheaper for both insurance companies to work on the assumption that there's an equal measure of blame attached to both parties so we'll just pay for our own insured's damage."

John

[JTM]

Since 199somethingor other the RTA law include where you are obliged to stop and exchange details

which includes eg S/market car park but not eg local golf club car park John

[JTM]

Locally forces will vary but:

Most traffic police officers will currently have a 'fatal' they are involved with which is costing over a million quid. They will not be too fussed about attending one of the hundreds of local bumps due to local snow conditions. Local patrol officers will make a note that they've attended and (since about the late '70's) will not even submit a separate report.

The 'minor' (my definition) 'damage only' bumps that are obviously blameworthy might be considered for a 'Due care' which could be proceeded with by way of a 'Fixed Penalty' ticket.

(this is a comparison with the 60's when EVERY bump was probably considered as a prosecution case)

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember John MacLeod saying something like:

All depends on the lawyer. Mine was excellent.

[John MacLeod]

I don't doubt it. And if you can afford a good lawyer -- going rate about =A3300 per hour -- that may well have much the same effect. However, most lawyers aren't good lawyers and you're likely to be investing serious money if you have a good one. It may be worth it.

[John MacLeod]

ge of details with the other party without

I wrote "calling the police," not "securing the attendance of the police." You can attempt to secure their attendance and specify the time of the call and the name of the individual who took the call. It should be logged in the police station.

Very, very doubtful.

True.

At least in this neck of the woods they'll hand out an HO/RT 1 form which will indicate that they've attended the scene.

I haven't suggested that they'll attempt to secure a prosecution in every case. They won't.

John

[F]

Not in my experience. When someone drove into me I called the police and they said they wouldn't attend unless there were injuries. I told them there were and they attended.