insurance problem

Eliza Lynch

Does anyone know does your insurance cover you if you crash if you have provisional license..?
I have comprehensive, no one else was involved and I had applied for my full license?

cAn anyone advise?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Absolutely, that's why you have insurance. Just check what excess you would have to pay and what impact it would have on your no claims bonus.

jimoc

Which provisional were you on at the time of the crash?
If you were on your first or third you will need to have had a fully licenced driver in the car with you or your insurance is null and void since you were not driving in accordance with the rules of the road.

If you were on your second then you should be fine.

Edit:
According to http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/driving-legally.html#7 all provisional drivers of Category B vehicles (cars) must now be accompanied.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jimoc wrote: »

Which provisional were you on at the time of the crash?
If you were on your first or third you will need to have had a fully licenced driver in the car with you or your insurance is null and void since you were not driving in accordance with the rules of the road.

If you were on your second then you should be fine.

That is totally incorrect. All Learner Permit Holders/Provisional Drivers must be accompanied by a fully qualified driver. Since 30 June 2008, the person accompanying you, must have had the full driving licence for the relevant vehicle category for at least two years.

Oryx

I'm interested in this question. Can an insurer really pull all cover in the case of an unaccompanied learner? With motorcycles, a learner cannot carry a pillion, but any insurance they have has to cover a pillion, regardless of the fact their not supposed to carry one.

Cabaal

Jazmin Eager Killer wrote: »

That is totally incorrect. All Learner Permit Holders/Provisional Drivers must be accompanied by a fully qualified driver. Since 30 June 2008, the person accompanying you, must have had the full driving licence for the relevant vehicle category for at least two years.

Agreed,
Its unreal the amount of people that assume things very much incorrectly, also its worth adding that you can't be on a FIRST Provisional anymore because they don't exist anymore.

Its called a learner permit and has been for a few years now

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Oryx wrote: »

Can an insurer really pull all cover in the case of an unaccompanied learner?

Certainly. And why wouldn't they. Learners must be accompanied by a qualified driver for a very good reason. :rolleyes:

jimoc

Cabaal wrote: »

Agreed,
Its unreal the amount of people that assume things very much incorrectly, also its worth adding that you can't be on a FIRST Provisional anymore because they don't exist anymore.

Its called a learner permit and has been for a few years now

Thats why I edited my post and added the addendum to it.
I did do my research, just slower then everyone else

Oryx

Jazmin Eager Killer wrote: »

Certainly*. And why wouldn't they. Learners must be accompanied by a qualified driver for a very good reason. :rolleyes:

*Any links? Im wondering about the actual legal status of this, I get the reasoning.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I'll tell you what. Instead of me spending my afternoon doing it for you (as you obviously don't believe me) why don't you contact the Insurance Federation and ask them yourself?

jimoc

Jazmin Eager Killer wrote: »

Certainly. And why wouldn't they. Learners must be accompanied by a qualified driver for a very good reason. :rolleyes:

Oryx wrote: »

*Any links? Im wondering about the actual legal status of this, I get the reasoning.

Its no different then driving with bald tyres.
Since you are not operating the vehicle within the rules and regulations of the road traffic act, then your insurance is not applicable as one of the main conditions of any policy is that the rules be obeyed.

Oryx

jimoc wrote: »

Its no different then driving with bald tyres.
Since you are not operating the vehicle within the rules and regulations of the road traffic act, then your insurance is not applicable as one of the main conditions of any policy is that the rules be obeyed.

@srameen. jeez everyones snippy today. Was just asking.

The bike thing seemed contradictory to what was said here, and I was once told that an insurer could not pull cover, but instead had to counter sue the client for any money paid out on a claim.

Like I said, only asking.

jimoc

Oryx wrote: »

@srameen. jeez everyones snippy today. Was just asking.

The bike thing seemed contradictory to what was said here, and I was once told that an insurer could not pull cover, but instead had to counter sue the client for any money paid out on a claim.

Like I said, only asking.

Didn't actually know about the counter-sueing bit, I was under the impression that the company simply declared your insurance void and scarpered from the situation.
However if you think about it, it actually makes more sense if they counter-sue, since that way, your insurance company will first pay out for any damage to pther people or property and then come after you for forcing them to pay out.

ha-ya-said-what

Eliza Lynch wrote: »

Does anyone know does your insurance cover you if you crash if you have provisional license..?
I have comprehensive, no one else was involved and I had applied for my full license?

cAn anyone advise?

You say no one else was involved does that mean you weren't accompanied by a fully qualified driver holding a full license for 2 years or more or does it mean no one else was involved as in you didn't hit anyone else?

coolabula

I remember hearing a guy from the AA on the radio discussing this a while back, your insurance will still be valid, unless you withhold info or lie when taking out the policy.

it is not up to the insurance companies to police their customers, they wouldnt cancel your insurance cause you didnt renew your tax would they!!

Agent_99

as coolabula stated it's not up to insurance companies to police their customers, it's up to customers to ensure that they are meeting the terms and conditions of their policy, insurances companies will not pull your insurance they will just not pay out on the claim as you may not meet the T&C's .... did you check before you bought the insurance if you would be covered in the event of a crash while accompanied/unaccompanied, Was the crash reported to the guards? Is there anyone else at a financial loss?

dudara

Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

dudara

Toots

OP, I'm gonna move this to the Motoring forum, you'll probably get more info there than here.

Eliza Lynch

I crashed today,
I am covered with axa fully comp,
I was unaccompanied(got the car to take a job, was driving to work),
I had applied for my test though,
Yes I called the guards, who said the crash was due to weather conditions.

Has anyone else been in this situation? Surely they have?

Guess I will just have to contact Axa, thank u for all your help, if any one has been in this situation please let me know tho.
:eek:


No one else was hurt or involved - just me and my car, which is a write off.

robtri

your insurance should still be fine and cover you...
as long as you did not make any false declarations on the proposal form...

i.e. didnt tell them you had a full licence....

having a provisional licence and driving on your own is an offence but it wont affect your policy from a cover point of view...

Henry Ford III

Single vehicle accident - driver permit holder unaccompanied.

No 3rd party damage.

This could be a bit messy. Insurer may refuse to pay the comp. claim. Not only that come renewal time you'll possibly get a very nasty shock.

It could even affect your ability to get insurance else where down the road.

p.s. Glad you are ok

oldyouth

A condition of your learners permit is that you must have a qualifed driver with you. If you breach that condition, you are not complying with your licence and are, therefore, technically driving without a licence. Although Insurers cannot refuse to settle a claim to a 3rd party for injury or damage, they have a right to refuse to settle your aspect of the loss

jimmycrackcorm

How does the insurance company know if the op was accompanied or not? He could simply say he was without any issue...

Henry Ford III

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How does the insurance company know if the op was accompanied or not? He could simply say he was without any issue...

That'd be fraud though.

jimmycrackcorm

jimoc wrote: »

Its no different then driving with bald tyres.
Since you are not operating the vehicle within the rules and regulations of the road traffic act, then your insurance is not applicable as one of the main conditions of any policy is that the rules be obeyed.

Are you actually suggesting that someone speeding or going over a continuous white line, parked incorrectly, drink driving or any other of type of driving rule breaking is not covered by insurance on the event of an accident ?

Gophur

jimoc wrote: »

Which provisional were you on at the time of the crash?
If you were on your first or third you will need to have had a fully licenced driver in the car with you or your insurance is null and void since you were not driving in accordance with the rules of the road.

If you were on your second then you should be fine.

Edit:
According to http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/driving-legally.html#7 all provisional drivers of Category B vehicles (cars) must now be accompanied.

jimoc wrote: »

Its no different then driving with bald tyres.
Since you are not operating the vehicle within the rules and regulations of the road traffic act, then your insurance is not applicable as one of the main conditions of any policy is that the rules be obeyed.

jimoc wrote: »

Didn't actually know about the counter-sueing bit, I was under the impression that the company simply declared your insurance void and scarpered from the situation.
However if you think about it, it actually makes more sense if they counter-sue, since that way, your insurance company will first pay out for any damage to pther people or property and then come after you for forcing them to pay out.

oldyouth wrote: »

A condition of your learners permit is that you must have a qualifed driver with you. If you breach that condition, you are not complying with your licence and are, therefore, technically driving without a licence. Although Insurers cannot refuse to settle a claim to a 3rd party for injury or damage, they have a right to refuse to settle your aspect of the loss

The level and quality of advice is stunning, to say the least.

For Insurance questions, please check with your own insurer, they will clarify the situation.

However, for a stranger on the Internet, to come out with garbage like your insurance is invalid because you were not conforming to the Rules of the Road (themselves, not being actual Law, just recommendations).


1. You are insured if you are in breach of the Law. That's what Insurance is, i.e. to cover you when something goes wrong. Think about it? In most all accidents/cashes someone has had to do something "wrong".

2. You don't have to have a driving licence to be covered. Most all policies state you must "have, or have held" the appropriate licence, and must not be under a period of disqualification.

3. To tell someone that they have no insurance if they have a bald tyre? FFS, please cop on and keep such advice to yourself.

4. Some car Insurance companies ask for an NCT cert, yet this does not mean a car is road-worthy. So, is one covered if one has an NCT but a car is in a dangerous condition? Or the corollary? Is one covered if one does not have an NCT cert, but the car is 100% sound?

Anan1

Gophur wrote: »

However, for a stranger on the Internet, to come out with garbage like your insurance is invalid because...

Gophur wrote: »

FFS, please cop on and keep such advice to yourself.

I'm sure you can make your points without getting personal, please do so in future.

charlesodowd

I am not going to comment on the driving permit aspect to this.

However if you are a Learner Driver you need to consider whether it is worth your while claiming at all, even if your insurance company will cover you.

Obviously you are claiming against yourself. This will come against you when your insurance is up for renewal i.e. it will increase vastly depending on the cost of the claim.

This all depends on the value of the car you have and how badly damaged it is. If your car was worth less than say €2,000 personally I would not consider claiming.

Your insurance company will also deduct your excess from your payout and depending on your policy this will probably be around €500.

Also their valuation of your car may differ substantially from yours.

They will not simply pay you out what you said your car was worth when you took out the policy. Whatever the assessor values the car at is what you'll get (minus the excess). If you have valued the car less that what its worth then youll get a percentage of the value.

oldyouth

Gophur wrote: »

The level and quality of advice is stunning, to say the least.

For Insurance questions, please check with your own insurer, they will clarify the situation.

However, for a stranger on the Internet, to come out with garbage like your insurance is invalid because you were not conforming to the Rules of the Road (themselves, not being actual Law, just recommendations).


1. You are insured if you are in breach of the Law. That's what Insurance is, i.e. to cover you when something goes wrong. Think about it? In most all accidents/cashes someone has had to do something "wrong".

2. You don't have to have a driving licence to be covered. Most all policies state you must "have, or have held" the appropriate licence, and must not be under a period of disqualification.

3. To tell someone that they have no insurance if they have a bald tyre? FFS, please cop on and keep such advice to yourself.

4. Some car Insurance companies ask for an NCT cert, yet this does not mean a car is road-worthy. So, is one covered if one has an NCT but a car is in a dangerous condition? Or the corollary? Is one covered if one does not have an NCT cert, but the car is 100% sound?

You are contributing to the muddy waters yourself with regard to your points above, so perhaps you shouldn't be so aggressive

1. Insurance doesn't cover you when breaking the law. It does however, by way of various Road Acts, protect other parties by preventing insurers from refusing a 3rd party claim even if there is a break in the law

2. Your response is partly correct but that wording is on your motor certificate, which relates to Road Traffic Act cover, which protects third parties. The balance of your cover (damage or loss to your vehicle) is a private contract with you and your insurer. If you breach the contract, it can be voided. A condition could be that you drive with a current valid licence (permit) which states you must be accompanied

3. A bald tyre represents driving an unroadworthy car and your own damage can be refused for the reasons outlined in 2 (above)

4. Insurers retain the right to assess a vehicle without a valid NCT as being of less market value as a vehicle that has one, so your own damage claim could be reduced significantly. Again, a 3rd party cannot be prejudiced because of the absence of an NCT

Gophur

oldyouth wrote: »

You are contributing to the muddy waters yourself with regard to your points above, so perhaps you shouldn't be so aggressive


..............................

Aggression? Not in the slightest. I'm not aggressive and my post should not be taken in that way.
As for "muddying" the waters?
It is clear the first advice I gave to the OP was ignored, i.e. contact one's own Insurance Co to clarify the situation.

oldyouth wrote: »

...............................

1. Insurance doesn't cover you when breaking the law. ................

..............................

Please, please, do not post such information.
Such a statement has to be backed up with cold, hard, facts. I have a few policies and have had numerous policies over the years, and not one of them ever indicated I was not covered in the event of "breaking the law".


What is Comprehensive Insurance for? It's for covering your own losses in the event you are at fault, i.e. when there is no third party to cover the loss.

Now, how could you possibly damage your own car if you are 100% within the Law? With great difficulty, I'd imagine.


(And, my posts are posted without any emotion. No "emotion" should be taken from them and I should never be accused of being personal or aggressive. I have an issue with the information being posted not the people posting this information.)

oldyouth

Gophur wrote: »

Aggression? Not in the slightest. I'm not aggressive and my post should not be taken in that way.
As for "muddying" the waters?
It is clear the first advice I gave to the OP was ignored, i.e. contact one's own Insurance Co to clarify the situation.



Please, please, do not post such information.
Such a statement has to be backed up with cold, hard, facts. I have a few policies and have had numerous policies over the years, and not one of them ever indicated I was not covered in the event of "breaking the law".


What is Comprehensive Insurance for? It's for covering your own losses in the event you are at fault, i.e. when there is no third party to cover the loss.

Now, how could you possibly damage your own car if you are 100% within the Law? With great difficulty, I'd imagine.


(And, my posts are posted without any emotion. No "emotion" should be taken from them and I should never be accused of being personal or aggressive. I have an issue with the information being posted not the people posting this information.)

PM sent

Gophur

Thank you but I do not want to indulge in any off-line discussions.

A forum discussion should remain open for all contributors.

metalgear2k2

To the OP,

you will be fine, you are covered regardless if you had a full licenced driver with you or not.

My GF drove in to a house (im not going in to it!) last year (still on her learner permit) and her insurance company covered the damge to the house and because the house owner was claming she claimed for her car as well.

Might not be worth you claming for ur car as ur the only one envloved, if the car aint worth it then its not worth losing ur no claims bonus (as has already been pointed out)

oldyouth

Gophur wrote: »

Thank you but I do not want to indulge in any off-line discussions.

A forum discussion should remain open for all contributors.

No problem Gophur. I was just providing you with the FACTS you requested without the thread developing in to a slagging match

Eliza Lynch

The car is worth 2500+.

I can not afford to repair it and to do so would cost more than the value of the car...there for it is a write off.

I have contacted the insurance company...they have taken my details and I am waiting to hear back from them. The car has been scrapped.

I will post again when I hear more, I have my fingers crossed as this was scary enough without my insurance company deciding not to pay.:(

If anyone else was in this position please share?
Thank you to all respondants.

B00MSTICK

As long as you told them the truth, i.e you are on a provisional, then you will probably be fine.

When I was learning I asked Hibernian would I be covered if I was driving unaccompained and they said I would be.

Of course you're crowd may be different but from personal experience you'll be fine. Also being of the fairer sex you won't be hit half as hard come renewal.

Eliza Lynch

Thank you,
I have to say the stress of this is so crazy, I crashed monday and was lucky to walk away from it but all I have been thinking about since is the insurance. And worrying about everything else (worrying my parents, getting to work, putting ppl out etc). I really need this to get sorted so I can get another car and just get back to normal. These ten days until I find out will just be hell.:(

I am just so glad no one else was involved.

Gophur

Any crash you can walk away from, with nobody hurt, is a good crash.

Eliza Lynch

oh I know, I really do, I was insanly lucky! The guard used the word blessed to describe the fact I walked away from the car, its just the shock was some how made worse with the stress of being a provisional lisence holder.
I don't mean to sound like I am feeling sorry for myself I know there are ppl much worse off and not as lucky as I have been, I just wanted a to hear similiar stories.
I also have to add that the two guards were very very good to me and also the two gentlemen who stopped to help me.I am very grateful.

Theta

Im not a law expert, BUT there was a solicitor on the radio a good while ago stating that even if you break the law and drive on your own you are still covered by your insurance.

He gave the example of drink driving as an instance where if you break the law your insurer is still required to cover you even if it states in the policy doc you cant be drunk and drive.

He said they will pay 3rd party claims but may not cover damage to your own car but you are still insured!

Henry Ford III

Theta wrote: »

He (Solicitor) said they (Insurer) will pay 3rd party claims but may not cover damage to your own car but you are still insured!

Exactly. Except in this instance there is no 3rd party claim.

Tbh the OP was putting her two fingers up to the driving accompanied law by buying the car to commute.

Eliza Lynch

Ok so I thought I should post the end of this story......

I contacted the insurance company and I got the valuation of my car and it looks like I will get covered for the crash.
I have not as yet recieved the cheque but I am more at ease then I was last wk.(altho I hope it will be ok!)

Thank you for all your posts and also I hope that this helps anyone else who is in this situation. :rolleyes:

Eliza Lynch

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Exactly. Except in this instance there is no 3rd party claim.

Tbh the OP was putting her two fingers up to the driving accompanied law by buying the car to commute.

I was not as such putting my two fingers up to the law just to clarify, It was not an act of rebellion I got a job...to keep said job I had to drive....I have comprehensive insurance and was not aiming to crash. Also I did not hurt anyone else. And I was waiting on a test date.

Henry Ford III

Eliza Lynch wrote: »

I was not as such putting my two fingers up to the law just to clarify, It was not an act of rebellion I got a job...to keep said job I had to drive....I have comprehensive insurance and was not aiming to crash. Also I did not hurt anyone else. And I was waiting on a test date.

No you didn't. You chose to flout the law.

Eliza Lynch

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No you didn't. You chose to flout the law.

I am not getting in to this with you.....

I am sure you have never driven with just a provisional, I am sure you never had to take a chance to get a job (esp in a recession) and I am sure you have never crashed.

Your right, like all celtic cubs I should have waited at home and just did nothing.

My point is that it was not an act of rebellion. I was not driving for a cheap thrill. it was an estimated chance that failed.