How Long Have Insurance Companies Inserted The Clause 'not To Be Used For Commuting', In Their Policies?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5188153/West-Yorkshire-police-seize-car-no-commuter-insurance.html

I wonder how many working age motorists, use their vehicles only for 'Social, domestic and pleasure purposes?

Mind you these days, 'pleasure purposes' is a laugh, who gets pleasure from motoring on the roads today?

[gingejbee]

If only AOG had read his own link, he wouldn't have asked such a daft question....the clause isn't inserted into policies. You're asked how you will use your vehicle, it's highlighted in your personal paperwork and reflected in your premium.
Anybody taking out car insurance in the last half century would know this.

[New Judge]

“…why do insurers need defences ?”

Because generally there are very few grounds on which they can deny cover that they have provided for Road Traffic Act purposes. It is often hinted on here:

“Your insurance could be invalid if your MoT has expired”
“Your insurance could be invalid if you have not changed the address on your driving licence”
“Your insurance could be invalid if you have a bald tyre”
“Your insurance could be invalid if your tax has expired”

None of these is true. But your insurance will be invalid if you use your car for purposes other than those covered by the policy. The only other one I can immediately think of is if the driver has been disqualified from driving.

[ToraToraTora]

TBF ginge, many people think SDP includes commuting. As judge says above, insurance is one of those areas were people make assumptions. The bottom line is, if it's on your certificate you can do it, if it ain't you can't. Eg many people think that you can drive other vehicles with the owners permission if you have Fully Comp, only true if it says it.

[Everhelpful]

Mine says I can drive a Motor Bike or Lorry,never drove either,seems ridiculous.

[TWR]

I think it's another cop out by Insurance company's, My Granddaughter's Insurance company declined her insurance because the car has legal Tinted windows, will the next be for a satnav that's not fitted by the makers, Mats in the car that could effect you braking / Clutch use, that the driver is too tall & has to lower his / her head to see out of the windscreen.

[hc4361]

I don't agree, TWR. The insurance could stop offering the discounts for not commuting or business use then lots of people would pay more.

Tinted windows are a modification to the vehicle that have to be reported to the insurance company - usually increases the premium by around 16% but some companies just don't like them and refuse the business. It's best to find out how modifications affect premiums before having the work done.

[Arrods]

But surely New Judge if a bald tyre leads to a claim, the insurer would be entitled to reject the own damage claim and seek a recovery from the policyholder for any sums it has been required to pay to a third party victim because of the RTA requirements. I'd have thought 'invalid' was a fair description of those circumstances. The only practical difference is that the policyholder is not uninsured in terms of the RTA.

OK, it is rare for insurers to seek a recovery in bald tyre third party cases but there are those that do so where the driver is drunk.

On the SD&P point, the textbooks state that, if there is no mention of commuting, it is to be assumed that commuting is covered, subject to what was disclosed at the proposal stage. Perhaps the textbook needs updating?

[woofgang]

best one I hear was from Churchill. I had alloy wheels fitted to my car. I told the insurers and did expect to pay an increased premium because "In those days"-this was around 10years ago- alloys made a car more nickable. Anyway I told the company and they said yes it would increase my premium but ALSO they would not cover the alloys and would make any payout based on the value of the car with standard wheels! At that point I left Churchill!

[spirulla]

Business use doesn't add much to annual premium, we've always opted for it, just to be on the safe side. Read all the fine print of all your policies (yawn) boring but necessary. Ask the company if you need clarification.

[TWR]

The car is used to communicate for approx one hour each way to your place of work, there's more chance the car getting hit on a Sat while shopping HC. regards the Tinted windows, I think it's the Window Tinters duty to inform the customer prior to commencing the work.

[New Judge]

“But surely New Judge if a bald tyre leads to a claim, the insurer would be entitled to reject the own damage claim and seek a recovery from the policyholder for any sums it has been required to pay to a third party victim because of the RTA requirements.”

As far as compulsory insurance is concerned the insurer cannot repudiate liability on spurious grounds nor can he insert clauses which allows him to do so. He might try to recover his outlay but he would be unlikely to succeed (and that’s why few of them try). “Own Damage” is a different matter (and that’s why I qualified by answer with the Road Traffic Act provision.

[woofgang]

But TWR, if the tint is legal,then the tinters have no way of knowing which insurance companies will refuse cover.

[gingejbee]

Having after-market tinting is a "modification" to the original spec. of the vehicle....and all insurance companies want to know if ANY modification has been made.

[TWR]

Fair point Woof, but I still think it's their duty to inform the customer to see if it's allowed by their Insures.

[ToraToraTora]

TWR, there are 1001 mods that can be done itr must surely be the car owners responsibility to be insured you cannot make every garage etc some how responsible, not practical.

[TWR]

You may be right TTT I still think it's unfair to the motorist how these insures cop out of things, If found you have one headlight out on your car and was involved in an accident would the look for a way to say that the light contributed to the accident.

[Arrods]

"As far as compulsory insurance is concerned the insurer cannot repudiate liability on spurious grounds nor can he insert clauses which allows him to do so. He might try to recover his outlay but he would be unlikely to succeed (and that’s why few of them try)."

OK New Judge, but then why is there a s.148(2) of the RTA? The clauses are allowed in policies - but have no effect so far as the RTA is concerned.

[EDDIE51]

Does not apply now as I am retired, but at one time I worked for the same employer but at 2 different addresses on different days of the week. So how would that have affected 'driving to a single place of employment'.
Also when I was semi retired but still did some temporary work , I found the insurance was higher if I put retired than if I put down employed and gave my part time job, kitchen worker, as the employment. I know a man who put tractor driver as his job and found it was a higher premium than if he put agricultural worker. How does that work? The tractor was never driven on the road only on farmland and as it was not road legal.

[TWR]

As said Eddie, Rip off / Cop outs every time/

[EDDIE51]

I could sort of understand the retired v working bit as if you are retired you could be driving around all day , where if you're working you drive to work and stay there til home time. But a higher premium for tractor driver than for agricultural worker with everything else the same I can not see.