Motor Insurer won't pay 3rd pty damage

Is it a condition of your own policy that named employees must have a policy in their own name?

Usually your named drivers would require a full licence and be over 25. I have not heard before that they need policies in their own name.

You should check your contract and your policy in detail. I would ask the insurance company to give you the clause number where it states clearly that named drivers must have seperate policies etc etc.

How do your insurance company know that your employee has no policy? Did you volunteer this information? If not then I be very worried about where they got the information!


If they requested it did they explain why? Are they breaching the Data Protection Laws? Your employee may have no idea that your insurance company is holding information about him.


In my experience insurance companies are prepared to lie to you.

It seems very odd that someone could be named (ie insured) on a policy and not insured because of some other condition. Were he stopped by Gardai, he would produce the cert as evidence of cover. This all seems very strange indeed.

You say that he is named on your COMMERCIAL policy. Was he driving that particular vehicle, or another vehicle?

Thanks indeed for all the replies.
Complainer: the only condition on the policy doc is the standard named driver covered 'provided teh person hodls a licence to drive such vehicle...and is not disqualified. Nothing about a private policy
JoeBallantin: He is aged 62 with a full licence for years.They asked about his private policy and I told them that it had expired 6 days before the incident. They didn't explain why they wanted to know this and I didn't suspect anything and just told them straight. Then I got a letter saying they won't pay.
It does seem strange that he's named but not covered for damage?! It's the only vehicle on that commercial policy, I have another policy for my private car and got this one seperately for the job.
Like JoeB said, they can lie or try to get out of a payment so I'll persevere and ask where it states that they must have a private policy. Thanks again for the opinions, much appreciated. Rob

The implication is that they expecting that your employee should be paying out on the driving other cars section on their own policy. Which gives the impression he isn't covered on your vehicle or that his cover is only for social domestic and pleasure use.

Even at that it would be unusual for them not to deal with the matter as the insurer concerned and seek reimbursement of the amount from the policy holder if the driver wasnt covered!

It sounds like you're chancing their arms, unless there is something that you're missing. You need to get back to them and explain that he is fully covered under the terms of the policy, and they are obliged to pay up.

Update

Thanks everyone for your opinion and advice. I wrote to the Insurers and asked where it stated that a private policy was a condition of cover for the named driver, and, this morning received a letter saying they have reviewed the circumstances and aim to finalise. Insurance speak for ‘we’ll look into it’, but no outright refusal to settle. So, it would seem they were just chancing their arms. It’s certainly worth bearing in mind that they may use this line as a first response! Thanks again. Rob.

I would say that MIBI would refuse to handle it as they would say there is an insurer of record and they must pay up.