Insured without IBT

Hotblack Desiato

leppla wrote: »

I have hear of cases with people that ended up not being covered for many stupid small print reasons. One of which was a lady driving a car who was wearing flip flops. She was told they were not the correct footwear for driving!!

:rolleyes: No requirement to wear any type of footwear when driving or any footwear at all. Even on a bike...

Mr Sheen!

blondie990 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Aon a few lines on a website doesn't negate the law as stated numerous times throughout the thread.

For youself and anyone else who needs clarification on the law surrounding ibt. statutory instrument si 681/2011.
Happy Reading

blondie990

leppla wrote: »

For youself and anyone else who needs clarification on the law surrounding ibt. statutory instrument si 681/2011.
Happy Reading

You appear to believe that SI681/2011 backs up your incorrect opinion in relation to the OP's post, it doesn't.

Let me "clarify" SI681/2011 for you. It relates to the fact that undertaking IBT is now a requirement, which nobody is disputing, it does not relate at all to insurance.

You appear to be having some difficulty with this particular thread, maybe just give it a rest.

Mr Sheen!

blondie990 wrote: »

You appear to believe that SI681/2011 backs up your incorrect opinion in relation to the OP's post, it doesn't.

Let me "clarify" SI681/2011 for you. It relates to the fact that undertaking IBT is now a requirement, which nobody is disputing, it does not relate at all to insurance.

You appear to be having some difficulty with this particular thread, maybe just give it a rest.

I referenced SI681/2011 as you were having difficulty understanding the legality of IBT. Let me refresh your memory:

blondie990 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Aon a few lines on a website doesn't negate the law as stated numerous times throughout the thread.

Unfortunately for you SI681/2011 does clear up the legality of IBT. . . But maybe you still think your right:eek:

blondie990

Oh dear. Again, nobody is disputing the legality of IBT :rolleyes:

On that note, I'm out.

+1 for the ignore list, can't be reading anymore of your silly posts.

Mr Sheen!

blondie990 wrote: »

Oh dear. Again, nobody is disputing the legality of IBT :rolleyes:

On that note, I'm out.

+1 for the ignore list, can't be reading anymore of your silly posts.

You were disputing the legality of IBT in this post:

blondie990 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Aon a few lines on a website doesn't negate the law as stated numerous times throughout the thread.

I would also leave if I made myself look as stupid as you just did.

P.C.

leppla wrote: »

For youself and anyone else who needs clarification on the law surrounding ibt. statutory instrument si 681/2011.
Happy Reading

That is about IBT.
Not insurance.

The OP's girlfriend already had insurance in place.

The OP was asking what would happen if there was a claim.
A third party claim would be settled.

daveyjoe

I don't think this thread is useful anymore, feel free to lock it mods.

leppla wrote: »

You were disputing the legality of IBT in this post

No he wasn't. He was saying that just because AON say on their website that you won't be covered without the IBT doesn't mean that they aren't legally required to cover you.

Nobody on this thread is disputing that you need the IBT to be road legal.

peteb2

Simple answer here - why don't you ring the insurance company?! Best placed to advise whether your girlfiend is covered or not.

peteb2

daveyjoe wrote: »

No he wasn't. He was saying that just because AON say on their website that you won't be covered without the IBT doesn't mean that they aren't legally required to cover you.

So what AON are saying is that their acceptance criteria requires you to have the IBT BEFORE they will cover you. Which is perferctly allowable.

bitburger

aon,CN will not give out cover without proof of ibt, liberty are the only company that does,

Vikings

Most if not all insurance certificates have the below disclaimer directly under the specifics of the policy:

Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such a vehicle, or having held such a licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence.

That is taken word for word from an RSA certificate of insurance.

If she holds a learner permit that now requires an IBT to allow her to drive her bike and it is not done then it is black and white that there is no insurance. That will get her taken as far as the courts.

Whether or not an insurance company will pay out on a claim would be the least of my worries.

Hotblack Desiato

^ And that's the same clause that'll get you on a restricted licence with an unrestricted bike. The vehicle doesn't fall within your licence class, so you're unlicensed, and therefore uninsured as well.

Mr Sheen!

Vikings wrote: »

Most if not all insurance certificates have the below disclaimer directly under the specifics of the policy:

Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such a vehicle, or having held such a licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence.

That is taken word for word from an RSA certificate of insurance.

If she holds a learner permit that now requires an IBT to allow her to drive her bike and it is not done then it is black and white that there is no insurance. That will get her taken as far as the courts.

Whether or not an insurance company will pay out on a claim would be the least of my worries.

Well quoted!
I might add that just because a third party gets a claim paid to them does not mean the person who hit them is insured as some other people have said on this thread. You will be paid out of you are hit by an uninsured driver also!

Cuddlesworth

The general rule of thumb is that its not worth suing somebody for less then 5k. Most car accidents cost far more than that. I'd get the IBT, she may be insured by she is open to the insurance company recovering costs. One smack into a high earner or nice car and you could have a large amount of debt on your doorstep.

Wonda-Boy

I know I am late to the party but after reading this romantic tale :rolleyes: the point I would be worried about, if it was my girlfriend is that she just hoped on a moped without any training. Am I right in saying that? Or has she been on bikes before?

Just because someone can drive a car does not make them safe on the road with a motorbike/moped on public roads. I am not having a pop just stating that IBT is essential or any form of training with bikes.....remember we all have to share the road so it would be nice if we had the bare minimum training.

TBH, I would not give the insurance company and reason to fc.uk me over coz the will find it.

galwaytt

Vikings wrote: »

Most if not all insurance certificates have the below disclaimer directly under the specifics of the policy:

Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such a vehicle, or having held such a licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence.

That is taken word for word from an RSA certificate of insurance.

If she holds a learner permit that now requires an IBT to allow her to drive her bike and it is not done then it is black and white that there is no insurance. That will get her taken as far as the courts.

Whether or not an insurance company will pay out on a claim would be the least of my worries.

ninja900 wrote: »

^ And that's the same clause that'll get you on a restricted licence with an unrestricted bike. The vehicle doesn't fall within your licence class, so you're unlicensed, and therefore uninsured as well.

leppla wrote: »

Well quoted!
I might add that just because a third party gets a claim paid to them does not mean the person who hit them is insured as some other people have said on this thread. You will be paid out of you are hit by an uninsured driver also!

All lovely, but all incorrect.

Once you have paid for, and received, a Certificate of Insurance, then, for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, you have insurance. It really is that simple.

Now, if you have obtained that by either knowingly or deliberately mis- or non-declaring a material fact which would have influenced you obtaining it, you are guilty of .........well, a bunch of stuff. Fraud, deception, whatever you want to call it.

And odd as it may seem to some - it doesn't matter to a Garda, Judge or the Attorney General when it comes to the Road Traffic Act - you still have the Cert, and ergo, cover. Which means you cannot be prosecuted for non-insurance, and any claim made against the policy will be met by the insurance company.

Naturally, once the insurance company get wind of this, they will cancel the cover, and if they have paid money out, they will - or can at any rate - instigate proceedings against you personally to recoup them. But that, as a Garda would say.......' is a Civil matter '.........up until all this goes pear-shaped, you are covered.

galwaytt

Roadskill wrote: »

Just some clarification from the Irish Insurance Federation


Duty of Disclosure

"Your duty when seeking insurance to inform the insurer of every material fact. The duty arises when getting quotes for new insurance. It also applies if you look for a variation of cover and at renewal of your policy. Non disclosure of a material fact can invalidate a policy: an insurer can cancel a policy or refuse to pay a claim if you fail to reveal all material facts when applying or renewing insurance."

It does say non disclosure so if you did tell them and they still insure you I don't know for sure.

Cancel, yes.
Refuse to pay a claim (3rd Party at any rate) - no they can't. Failure of diligence on their part (e.g. to see a licence or proof of IBT etc) especially when they require it in their T's & C's, is no defence I'm afraid.

If you did tell them you have no IBT, and they still covered you, you're covered. But you're breaking licence-law now, which is a matter for the AG, not the insurance company, to prosecute.

daveyjoe wrote: »

I don't think this thread is useful anymore, feel free to lock it mods.

Yep, I think that's where we are now ! :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

galwaytt wrote: »

And odd as it may seem to some - it doesn't matter to a Garda, Judge or the Attorney General when it comes to the Road Traffic Act - you still have the Cert, and ergo, cover. Which means you cannot be prosecuted for non-insurance, and any claim made against the policy will be met by the insurance company.

We're back again to the semantics of what being insured is.
Every policy has conditions attached to it, violate those and your policy is invalid i.e. you are not financially covered against third party claims.
Now, in practice, the insurance company will pay out, but as has been said, they can still go after you for the cash.
You might be safe from being convicted of driving without insurance (although I wouldn't bet on that) but if your insurance doesn't financially protect you, it's not worth a damn.

There really should be an offence of obtaining motor insurance by false pretences, or wilfully violating the conditions of motor insurance, with equivalent penalties to never having taken out a policy at all.

Wonda-Boy

Look lads, even when you do "EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK" with insurance companies and pay massive amounts and all is 100%, as soon as you make a claim they are looking at every opportunity to get out of paying. Or reducing the amount big time, so by making false declarations you are asking for trouble. Does not matter what what information is wrong its wrong information. And the fact you were not asked means nothing. Its up to the RIDER/DRIVER to make sure you are 100%.

I would rather lie to the missus then the insurance companies TBH.

bladespin

ninja900 wrote: »

There really should be an offence of obtaining motor insurance by false pretences, or wilfully violating the conditions of motor insurance, with equivalent penalties to never having taken out a policy at all.

There is, it's called fraud lol.

daveyjoe

I've been avoiding replying to this thread because I didn't want to bump it up and encourage more flaming (that didn't work) :-). Lot's of anecdotes and guesses here but I'm satisfied that galwaytt has answered my original question. Thanks everybody, I think this topic has been very well covered at this stage, can I suggest that mods lock this thread :-).