Car Reversing From Being Illegally Parked - Is Insurance Still Valid?

[Evie1900]

If a car has been illegally parked in a disabled bay and has an accident reversing out would it invalidate their insurance?

[Bazile]

Why would it ?

[EDDIE51]

No.

[ToraToraTora]

It is a common misconception that anything illegal invalidates insurance. In truth almost nothing invalidates insurance or all convictions of any kind would also involve a no insurance prosecution. However an insurance company will use any sort of illegality to reduce or refuse a payout.

[Buenchico]

The '3rd party' element of an insurance policy can't be invalidated by the actions of the policy holder. (If he causes an accident after consuming a bottle of whiskey, the insurer must still pay out upon a claim from the other party).

However any additional cover (such as that provided by 'fully comp' policies) is subject to the small print of the particular policy. (The drunk driver, referred to above, probably wouldn't get a penny towards repairing his own vehicle).

In the example in your question, the action of reversing out of the bay isn't, in itself, illegal. (He might, for example, have simply pulled into it to drop someone off). So it's extremely unlikely that any insurer could use their small print to get out of paying for he damage to his car (assuming that he had 'fully comp' cover); as stated above, the insurer would definitely remain obliged to pay out in respect of third party damage or injury.

[Deskdiary]

There are very few defences an insurer has under the Road Traffic Act. One of the few defences is using a vehicle outside of the use permitted on the Certificate (so, for example, if you are insured just for social use, but have an accident while driving for work, the insurer has a valid defence. They will still need to pay the third party, but they have a right of recovery against their insured).

"However an insurance company will use any sort of illegality to reduce or refuse a payout." If TTT is referring to payments to third parties, he is wrong - they can't. If he is referring to own damage, he is also wrong. This would suggest if somebody hit a third party up the backside while speeding the insurer would reduce the amount paid out for the own damage. This would be a breach of contract - it simply would not happen.

If there is a 'drink/drugs' clause in a policy (which is extremely rare), then in the event of an accident the insurer is only responsible to the third party - not for the own damage. If there is not such a clause, refusing to pay for own damage would be a breach of contract.

An insurance policy is a misnomer - it should more accurately be described as an insurance contract. In consideration of the insurance premium, the insurer will pay to the extent the policy allows them to pay. It really is as simple as that.

There is no 'small print' in consumer insurance contracts. They are now extremely easy to read - anybody who reads one and does not understand what they are and are not covered for must, frankly, be a bit dim.

[Baillie]

The vehicle reversing has the responsibility to make sure the way is clear. Parking illegally has no bearing on it

[waterboatman]

The simple way to avoid such 'accidents' is to reverse into parking spaces, it's much safer.

Parking illegally in a disabled space can, and should, attract a fine if seen bye a parking attendant. It is unfair to do so as it is denying that space to someone who holds a blue badge.