# Insurance Cover for accident on motorway on 2nd provisional Licence



## sdolan27 (29 Jan 2007)

Hey guys,

Was just wondering if anyone has any idea on procedure if you are driving on the motorway and you have a bad accident but driving under provisional licence? The car is a complete right-off but can my insurance company say that I wasn't covered for been on the motorway?


----------



## Satanta (29 Jan 2007)

sdolan27 said:


> The car is a complete right-off but can my insurance company say that I wasn't covered for been on the motorway?


I'd assume they can. It's illegal for a provisional driver to drive on the motorway.

If you check your terms and conditions on the insurance policy I'm sure you'll see something about the insurance only covering you if your not breaking the law (it won't be worded quite like that but the basic idea will be the same) [I believe my own mentions some specifics such as racing etc. but definatly a catch all which states any illegal activity is not covered].


----------



## RS2K (29 Jan 2007)

The co. can deny any liabilty, and rightly so.


----------



## jhegarty (29 Jan 2007)

Satanta said:


> I'd assume they can. It's illegal for a provisional driver to drive on the motorway.
> 
> If you check your terms and conditions on the insurance policy I'm sure you'll see something about the insurance only covering you if your not breaking the law (it won't be worded quite like that but the basic idea will be the same) [I believe my own mentions some specifics such as racing etc. but definatly a catch all which states any illegal activity is not covered].



Are you sure there is correct... if it is they can refuse to pay out on anyone 1kph over speed limit ?


----------



## monkeyboy (29 Jan 2007)

jhegarty said:


> Are you sure there is correct... if it is they can refuse to pay out on anyone 1kph over speed limit ?


 
They probably could/would if you were "speeding" and this could be proven. at the time. If the damage was substantial enough they also may investigate in greater detail to find whether or not the driver was driving dangerously at the time or speeding.

SO technically Id say yes........


----------



## Ravima (29 Jan 2007)

policy ususally says 'provided you hold a licence to drive, or having held a licence, are not disqualified from holding a licence.

if company interpret it that you did NOT hold a licence to drive, and you did not as you cannot drive on a motorway without a full licence, then not paying the cost of your car might be the least of your problems as thay would be entitled to come after you to pay the third party claim as well!


----------



## slave1 (30 Jan 2007)

I worked in a car ins co in a previous life and as long as you held a licence of any kind you were covered, I never heard of someone on a provisional licence being withheld claim amounts, think about the number of provisional licence holders in Irl today, if ins. copmanies were withholding payments then there would be no need for this query as it would be well know.


----------



## Satanta (30 Jan 2007)

slave1 said:
			
		

> I never heard of someone on a provisional licence being withheld claim amounts, think about the number of provisional licence holders in Irl today, if ins. copmanies were withholding payments then there would be no need for this query as it would be well know.


I didn't claim they would withhold the payment, the OP asked if they could. Due to the fact that the OP was breaking the law, from my own vague memory of my insurance Ts&Cs [and I could be recalling them incorrectly], I believe they may have a case to refuse if they so wished (they will have to cover any third party but again, could decide to chase this up with the OP after).

A previous thread here on AAM detailed a claim being made where the insured hadn't disclosed penalty points on their licence and the insurance company refused to pay out. I'd view breaking the law to be in a similiar (if not higher) bracket as non disclosure of information. 

I had a quick google and didn't find any cases where a provisional driver (having had an accident on the motorway) had any problems with a claim. That doesn't mean that there aren't examples out there, it also doesn't mean that the insurance company *has* to pay out or that they won't pay out, but given that the law was broken they may (I can't state for certain either way) have a case to withhold. Whether they do or not is an entirely different matter.

I know numerous claims where a provisional driver (1st prov.) driving alone have been covered (again, technically breaking the law) in accidents. I would have again assumed the insurance company would have had a case to withold payment if they had wished too. Even if the convention is that they pay out, it doesn't mean that they must.  
[There may well be something which does mean that they must, but just banking on "they pay everyone else" isn't really arming yourself with knowledge]


----------



## RS2K (30 Jan 2007)

I cannot agree.

Driving a car on a motorway on a provisional license is an offence. It is also outside the scope of what the driver is allowed to do under thier license.


----------



## NorfBank (30 Jan 2007)

Definitely covered, whether they pay out or not will obviously depend on the particulars of the case.


----------



## Satanta (30 Jan 2007)

NorfBank said:


> Definitely covered, whether they pay out or not will obviously depend on the particulars of the case.


 If they *are covered* how could the insurance company refuse to pay out?

[Personally, I think most ins. companies do pay out in these cases. Never understood why. Possibly increased revenue for the industry having a driver with a claim? Possibly for good PR?]


----------



## jhegarty (30 Jan 2007)

Satanta said:


> If they *are covered* how could the insurance company refuse to pay out?
> 
> [Personally, I think most ins. companies do pay out in these cases. Never understood why. Possibly increased revenue for the industry having a driver with a claim? Possibly for good PR?]




I presume they worked out how much these extras cost and that is why insurance with a full licence is cheaper...


----------



## gipimann (30 Jan 2007)

Here's a thought - if an insurance policy wording says "provided you hold a licence to drive, or having held a licence, are not disqualified from holding a licence", are you covered if your licence lapses?   You held a licence and haven't been disqualified!    The law says you can't drive without a licence, but would you be insured without one!


----------



## jhegarty (30 Jan 2007)

gipimann said:


> Here's a thought - if an insurance policy wording says "provided you hold a licence to drive, or having held a licence, are not disqualified from holding a licence", are you covered if your licence lapses?   You held a licence and haven't been disqualified!    The law says you can't drive without a licence, but would you be insured without one!



Yes you are.....


----------



## LUFC (1 Feb 2007)

The insurance company would pay out but you could be prosecuted by the guards for driving on the motorway on a prov licence. 
If it was the fact that an insurance would not pay out for this type of claim then why would insurance companies offer insurance for provisional licences at all? by law all prov licence holders must be accompanied by a full licence driver. As we all know majority of prov licence holders drive alone & I've never heard of a claim being refused on this basis.


----------



## jrewing (1 Feb 2007)

"by law all prov licence holders must be accompanied by a full licence driver." 

Not true, you can drive alone on your second provisional AFAIK


----------



## Satanta (1 Feb 2007)

LUFC said:


> If it was the fact that an insurance would not pay out for this type of claim then why would insurance companies offer insurance for provisional licences at all?


To allow those that stay within the law, drive with a fully licenced driver and don't go on motorways, to gain experience driving so they can get a full licence. 



> by law all prov licence holders must be accompanied by a full licence driver. As we all know majority of prov licence holders drive alone & I've never heard of a claim being refused on this basis.


I've never heard of it either, but that doesn't mean that the insurance company *must* pay out. There is a huge difference between what happens in reality (by convention) and what must happen (as required by law). 

I would be surprised if the insurance company didn't/doesn't pay out on the OPs case, but I've yet to be convinced (or even swayed slightly towards) that they *must*.

[the original question was "can" the company refuse pay out not "will"]


----------



## LUFC (6 Feb 2007)

Satanta said:


> To allow those that stay within the law, drive with a fully licenced driver and don't go on motorways, to gain experience driving so they can get a full licence


 
Ok I have never known or heard of anyone strictly obeying to the above, it looks good on paper but in reality doesn't happen.
I drove a motor bike years ago, on a prov licence, and EU law made it compulsary for all insurance companies to provide third party pillion passenger cover. I rang up my insurance company & queried would i be covered by mt policy as, by law, you had to hold a full motorbike licence to carry a passenger. Insurance company told me that a claim would be covered, even though I only held a provisional licence, however I could be prosecuted by the guards for carrying a passenger while holding a prov licence.
I know this is motorbike insurance but the above is very similar circumstances to the OP's question.


----------



## Satanta (6 Feb 2007)

LUFC said:


> Ok I have never known or heard of anyone strictly obeying to the above, it looks good on paper but in reality doesn't happen.


Well, I for one can confirm that I did stick to it.

Partly because I didn't have the opportunity to drive without a licenced driver on my first provisional (I hardly had the opportunity to drive full stop) and on my second I was legally allowed to drive alone, getting my full licence a few months into my second prov. 

There were no motorways on/near any routes I took during that time so I had no reason to go outside the law, but many people do go out of the way to ensure they stay within it.


----------



## Jonathan H (6 Feb 2007)

I have never heard of a claim being refused for this reason, It may be something new that a particular insurance company is now trying to do, but I would be very surprised if they got away with it. 

I have seen several cases where cars have been written off as a result of drink driving and the claim has been paid - Insurers are now trying to introduce a drink/drug clause in their policies to stop this. 

If the sole reason they are refusing the claim is because you hold a prov lic then I suggest you contact insurance federation or ombudsman.


----------



## Satanta (6 Feb 2007)

Jonathan H said:


> If the sole reason they are refusing the claim is because you hold a prov lic then I suggest you contact insurance federation or ombudsman.


The OP is asking "*can*" an insurance company say no, not that they have.

I've yet to see anything convince me either way. The convention is that they pay, I presume they might/will pay in this case, but could they refuse? If failure to notify insurance company of penalty points can cause refusal (previous AAM threat) I'd see a chance insurance companies may use prov. licence (possibly under the "licence to drive" as mentioned above, a prov. isn't a licence to drive on the motorway) as a potential reason too. I'm not saying they will, I'm not even saying they can, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them trying it.


----------



## Jonathan H (6 Feb 2007)

The OP is asking "*can*" an insurance company say no, not that they have.

Satanta you are right I did mis read original post and I agree insurers could try and use as a reason to decline and agree I doubt they will. I suggest OP contacts insurance company to process claim in normal manner


----------



## PGD1 (6 Feb 2007)

I asked my insurance company this once. They said that if you pay for insurance then you are insured. It is seperate from breaking the law.

Of course once you get into the nitty gritty of it there might be differences in payouts etc etc etc... I don't know.


----------



## ACA (6 Feb 2007)

Technically OP was uninsured at the time of the accident and the insurance company could decline any claim for damage to his own vehicle if the policy was comprehensive.

This link, http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c.../driver-licensing/provisional_driving_licence states the restrictions that apply to prov drivers. 

The insurance company SHOULD pay out to any other party affected, TP driver/passengers and any passengers in PH vehicle.


----------



## LUFC (7 Feb 2007)

Satanta said:


> If failure to notify insurance company of penalty points can cause refusal (previous AAM threat)


 
Come to think of it I think my car insurance states an increased x/s (€2,500) is applicable for non-disclosure of penalty points.
They still pay the claim but I pay a much higher x/s, seems fair enough.


----------



## Satanta (7 Feb 2007)

LUFC said:


> Come to think of it I think my car insurance states an increased x/s (€2,500) is applicable for non-disclosure of penalty points.
> They still pay the claim but I pay a much higher x/s, seems fair enough.


A very good example of how differing Ts&Cs can have very different effects (+€2500 to excess vs. total write off not covered).


----------



## peteb (13 Mar 2007)

Driving on a prov licence and having an accident V not telling you've penalty points = two different point for insurers.

1. Driving on a prov licence no matter what number, on motorways, unaccompanied, or not - insurers will pay out.  Insurance is on the basis of civil/common low and the fact you are provisional licence driver on the motorway is a matter of criminal law.  Road Traffic Act makes insurers pay out for Third Party claim regardless, and the only affect a conviction would have would be to sway liability if there was any ambiguity on who was to blame!

2.  Not telling an insurance company you have two penalty points - is a non-disclosure of a material fact. Your policy states that you must declare any material changes to insurers.  Therefore you dont tell them you have two/four/six points, and you have an accident they are in a position to refuse your claim if they so decide.  They may pay any Third Party aspect as they have to, and then chase you for repayment after they've cancelled your policy!!


----------



## ACA (14 Mar 2007)

> 1. Driving on a prov licence no matter what number, on motorways, unaccompanied, or not - insurers will pay out.


 
I'd have to disagree with you there peteb, the company that I work for can, (and do) use driving licence restrictions to decline claims. 

As stated in my previous post, one of the restrictions of a provisional licence is motorway driving - if prov licence holder is found to be the cause of the accident, there will be no pay-out on a comprehensive policy for accidental damage to their own vehicle - obviously all other vehicles/persons affected are settled. If the cause of the accident is not prov. licence holder, they would be settled with no problem.

A lot of insurance companies are changing the general exceptions to their policy booklets - for instance in the policy booklet of the company I work for states:- 
We will not cover the driver unless they:
a hold a licence to drive the vehicle;
b have held, and are not disqualified from holding or getting a licence; and
*c meet the conditions and any limits of the driving licence*

Section c, precludes pay-out in the OP set of circumstances, if they are deemed responsible for the accident, as under the provisions of their driving licence - they shouldn't have been on the motorway in the first place.


----------



## peteb (15 Mar 2007)

I stand corrected on that matter ACA. But i work in the broader end of the industry and have rarely come across that! I'm intrigued now and will have to do some research tomorrow to see who else says it.


----------



## ailbhe (16 Mar 2007)

Studied this for a recent exam. As motor insurance is obligatory insurance they will pay out to the third party as this is what the insurance is in place for. They are not obliged to pay your costs and can take legal action to recover the amount they paid out. 
In the case of a prov licence they usually just pay out but are under no obligation to do so as far as I know.


----------



## jhegarty (16 Mar 2007)

ACA said:


> I'd have to disagree with you there peteb, the company that I work for can, (and do) use driving licence restrictions to decline claims.
> 
> As stated in my previous post, one of the restrictions of a provisional licence is motorway driving - if prov licence holder is found to be the cause of the accident, there will be no pay-out on a comprehensive policy for accidental damage to their own vehicle - obviously all other vehicles/persons affected are settled. If the cause of the accident is not prov. licence holder, they would be settled with no problem.
> 
> ...




I would agree is section C was in insurance t&c's but I have never seen it in a policy I have had. Can they still refuse to pay 1st part costs without this there ?


----------



## peteb (17 Mar 2007)

Nope. Cos what isn't specifically excluded is included. Ambiguity favours the the policy-holder! 
Sounds like a Quinn Direct condition that one.


----------



## ACA (17 Mar 2007)

100% correct there peteb, (not exactly rocket science tho, as it's listed under my profile!) Although to be fair a lot of the big players in the insurance world are now including similarly worded exclusions.


----------



## peteb (20 Mar 2007)

Tch. I dont be bothered looking at those thing! feel stupid now tho!


----------

