Taxi Driver Online

wasn't there a case a few years ago where an unlicensed car crashed and the insurance company wouldn't make a full payout because money had changed hands ?

They may not have paid out for the car and driver, but the passengers are covered, as is every third party, by the Motor Insurers Bureau.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well than.. it is safe to say. that the passengers are not insured by the driver's insurance, so therefore he does not have insurance to cover than, which means they are not insured by him..... so-in-law he has no insurance to cover them..... the Motor Insurance Bureau is a totally different issue..... which people are trying to confuse the issue with.....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

not quite..if he had no insurance at all then his Passengers wouldnt get the benefit of his Third party insurance...in order to have third party cover he would need to be insured to some level.

Mr Bloodnock, From reading your posts in the past it has become apparent to me that you are not as naive as some on here. Assuming this is so, I believe that you know any of us can insure anything we like.

The point in question is whether or not a person in insured by the driver when he is performing an illegal act ( traffic violations etc.) he is not.
The issue is being clouded by bringing in the Motor Insurance Bureau which will cover victims of personal injury caused by uninsured drivers.

If you were to agree with this logic then there would be no point in anyone being insured, because the insurance bureau would be your point of claim. Where this logic breaks down is that the MIB is funded by the ins. companies through a levy on your policy, so if no-one insured their vehicles there would be no ins. bureau. Reality - if you are not insured you are breaking the law.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Mr T is right here.
You cannot be insured to break the law.
The MIB may cover your passengers but your policy does not.
You are still driving without the appropriate insurance.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Im flattered you read my comments MR T...however im not advocating that people use PH,s for Taxi work, what I am trying to say though and this is the point your failing to pick up on ...that it is Better to run an insured vehicle which if Illegally used is still covered by Third Party vehicle and Passenger Cover than to be run a vehicle with no insurance at all, that way its not the MIB that coughs up but the insurance company whom had been quite happily taking your Money for several years...If they were happy to take your money and pay out in the event of a PH accident then it should still be for them to pay out as normal long before the MIB whom have not been so lucky as to have been recieving directly your Insurance Premiums have to cough up....otherwise the Insurance Company keeps all your payed up insurance money then Conveniently foists off the responsibilty of claim settlements to the MIB.

that said..I hate insurance Dodgers and anyone that abuses Insurance in other ways ..simply because its You, Me and all the decent operators that foots the bill for these cowboys.

I guess we're singing from the same Hymn book...its just we're singing Different Hymns

That said didn't we have a case on here recently where the insurance company said they would cover even when the driver was acting outside the law?

Or did I dream it?

_________________
IDFIMH

No you didn't dream it. you're just picking bits out to suit your argument, and causing confusion at the same time. if a private hire driver has a public hire policy then his insurance company will more than likely clover passenger...... But... if his policy is private hire only.( as councils are starting to insist upon) then he is uninsured.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

The Wrekin case highlights insurance cover and points out the fact that if the insurance policy precludes plying for hire then whether or not the driver is indemnified an offence is committed.

There is however another case which escapes me, that points out the distinction between the activity of the offence and indemnity of driver.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=3990

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Taking this to another level, any driver who drives a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol is breaking the law, yes. Now if this driver runs into a group of people who are waiting at a bus stop and injures them, who do they claim against. The driver, the drivers insurance or the MIB?
I know that a chap I used to work with that did exactly this. His insurers paid all the 3rd party injury claims, some of which were still being claimed for several years after the incident.

_________________
Grandad,