Insurance Cover for accident on motorway on 2nd provisional Licence

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Satanta said:
If failure to notify insurance company of penalty points can cause refusal (previous AAM threat)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
A very good example of how differing Ts&Cs can have very different effects (+€2500 to excess vs. total write off not covered).
 
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!!
 
1. Driving on a prov licence no matter what number, on motorways, unaccompanied, or not - insurers will pay out.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...


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 ?
 
Nope. Cos what isn't specifically excluded is included. Ambiguity favours the the policy-holder!
Sounds like a Quinn Direct condition that one.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top