Car insurance invalidation questions

[Lisamalcs]

Hi Guys,

I have a question for you relating to car insurance being invalidated by using the vehicle for commuting when not insured to do so.

 

My partner recently had a collision in which no-one was hurt but property damage occurred - he collided with a bus in his Nissan Navara, and the bus came off slightly worse with damage to the front bumper. When he filled out the insurance paperwork he said that he had been heading from one 'meeting' to another. The insurance underwriter contacted him to inform him that he was only covered for personal and pleasure, specifically excluding business and even commuting.

 

He was unaware that he wasn't covered for commuting and uses his vehicle to drive to and from his office. However, on the day in question the meetings were not related to his job - he was driving from a meeting about a project which he currently does on a non-commercial basis to a counselling session (which is why he does not go to the office on the day in question each week) - he can provide evidence of the meeting he was going to.

 

My question is this - despite the fact that he was not using the vehicle for work on this occasion he does do on other occasions - does this invalidate the entire policy?

He genuinely thought that private insurance would include commuting but on closer inspection it does state 'excluding commuting' on his insurance document.

 

I'm interested in about to the road traffic act s151 and 152 relating to the compulsory cover of 3rd parties by the insurer who has taken the premium - they could potentially sue my partner for the 3rd party damage as well as refusing to cover his vehicle?

 

I'd appreciate any informed advice on this.

[dr fox]

**Im not qualified in any way and just giving my take on your post**

 

The way ive read it is that your husband has put on the form that he was heading from one meeting to another so to me that would mean it was business/work related and the insurers would/have saw it that way also.

 

If the policy excludes commuting then its upto the insured to check the policy. Ive just had a look at my new car policy and it says on mine to check the details carefully and contact them if there are any errors.

 

Has the insurer sent a letter of notice under Section 152 ?

[Lisamalcs]

**Im not qualified in any way and just giving my take on your post**

 

The way ive read it is that your husband has put on the form that he was heading from one meeting to another so to me that would mean it was business/work related and the insurers would/have saw it that way also.

 

If the policy excludes commuting then its upto the insured to check the policy. Ive just had a look at my new car policy and it says on mine to check the details carefully and contact them if there are any errors.

 

Has the insurer sent a letter of notice under Section 152 ?

 

Hi thanks for your input. My partner was not commuting at the time of the incident and has proof of this that can be shown to them... At this point their underwriter has merely questioned it and my own research has brought up s152. I hear what you are saying about checking the policy. The policy will need to be changed but I am

Just unsure about whether the fact that he does commute invalidates the policy at all times.

[king12345]

Hi thanks for your input. My partner was not commuting at the time of the incident and has proof of this that can be shown to them... At this point their underwriter has merely questioned it and my own research has brought up s152. I hear what you are saying about checking the policy. The policy will need to be changed but I am

Just unsure about whether the fact that he does commute invalidates the policy at all times.

 

The policy is valid if he wasn't commuting.
The insurance will try to get out of it but of course your husbband has never commuted under this policy ;-)
Even if he told them that he regularly commutes, he's not covered while doing so, but he's surely covered for social, domestic and pleasure like in this case.

[unclebulgaria67]

 

 

The policy is valid if he wasn't commuting.

The insurance will try to get out of it but of course your husbband has never commuted under this policy ;-)

Even if he told them that he regularly commutes, he's not covered while doing so, but he's surely covered for social, domestic and pleasure like in this case.

 

Yes exactly. As long as on the day in question, he can evidence the use of the vehicle as not commuting for work purposes, then I expect it would be ok.

 

But I expect that they will ask about the normal usage of the vehicle now that he has mentioned the usage in the way that he has. That is up to him, bearing in mind he had not mentioned commuting before. If he has been using it travel to various places of work, then he should have had different class of use and he would have paid a higher premium. I doubt the Insurers would void the policy and turn down the claim, but they may want the extra premium to be paid from the relevant date. In the worse case senario, he admits his mistake in not mentioning commuting usage and the details of the exact usage are not within the Insurers underwriting criteria. Because they would not have insured him, had they known, the Insurers could void the policy and then be after him to reimburse them for the claim payout to the third party bus.

 

If he is not going to confirm the exact normal usage on this occasion, he should have a reasonable explanation of how he normally commutes to work, that would stand up to any questioning. Also how the vehicle is normally used. The Insurers quite often use cognitive interviews to try to catch people out, so he should think about this.

 

Perhaps he should look into whether this Insurance company would have insured him for the correct usage.

[dacouc]

Yes exactly. As long as on the day in question, he can evidence the use of the vehicle as not commuting for work purposes, then I expect it would be ok.

 

But I expect that they will ask about the normal usage of the vehicle now that he has mentioned the usage in the way that he has. That is up to him, bearing in mind he had not mentioned commuting before. If he has been using it travel to various places of work, then he should have had different class of use and he would have paid a higher premium. I doubt the Insurers would void the policy and turn down the claim, but they may want the extra premium to be paid from the relevant date. In the worse case senario, he admits his mistake in not mentioning commuting usage and the details of the exact usage are not within the Insurers underwriting criteria. Because they would not have insured him, had they known, the Insurers could void the policy and then be after him to reimburse them for the claim payout to the third party bus.

 

If he is not going to confirm the exact normal usage on this occasion, he should have a reasonable explanation of how he normally commutes to work, that would stand up to any questioning. Also how the vehicle is normally used. The Insurers quite often use cognitive interviews to try to catch people out, so he should think about this.

 

Perhaps he should look into whether this Insurance company would have insured him for the correct usage.

 

The OP's vehicle is a 4/5 seater pick up, there's a good chance the Insurers would not offer Class One Business Use to this type of vehicle

[dr fox]

Yes exactly. As long as on the day in question, he can evidence the use of the vehicle as not commuting for work purposes, then I expect it would be ok.

 

But I expect that they will ask about the normal usage of the vehicle now that he has mentioned the usage in the way that he has. That is up to him, bearing in mind he had not mentioned commuting before. If he has been using it travel to various places of work, then he should have had different class of use and he would have paid a higher premium. I doubt the Insurers would void the policy and turn down the claim, but they may want the extra premium to be paid from the relevant date. In the worse case senario, he admits his mistake in not mentioning commuting usage and the details of the exact usage are not within the Insurers underwriting criteria. Because they would not have insured him, had they known, the Insurers could void the policy and then be after him to reimburse them for the claim payout to the third party bus.

 

If he is not going to confirm the exact normal usage on this occasion, he should have a reasonable explanation of how he normally commutes to work, that would stand up to any questioning. Also how the vehicle is normally used. The Insurers quite often use cognitive interviews to try to catch people out, so he should think about this.

 

Perhaps he should look into whether this Insurance company would have insured him for the correct usage.

 

I agree, but the way I have read the post "traveling from one meeting to another ". Would state that it was work related, unless as you say he can prove that it was not work related.

[unclebulgaria67]

 

 

 

I agree, but the way I have read the post "traveling from one meeting to another ". Would state that it was work related, unless as you say he can prove that it was not work related.

 

Possibly. It is up to them to deal with it. The type of vehicle and usage will have set off very loud alarm bells.

[dacouc]

Possibly. It is up to them to deal with it. The type of vehicle and usage will have set off very loud alarm bells.

 

It would be interesting to know the OP's partner's occupation / profession, perhaps they could advise us

[dr fox]

Another thing I was thinking of was that a Nissan navara could be classed as a commercial vehicle?

If it is then commercial insurance would be needed as opposed to private insurance.

[unclebulgaria67]

Another thing I was thinking of was that a Nissan navara could be classed as a commercial vehicle?

 

If it is then commercial insurance would be needed as opposed to private insurance.

 

The double cab ones are ok with some Insurers for a private policy.

[dacouc]

The double cab ones are ok with some Insurers for a private policy.

 

Generally for private use or private and commuting to one permanent place