[ben001]

(Note: this is hypothetical as I don't drive yet. I'm just trying to understand the insurance.)

If through genuine, honest error I break the law and have an accident, should my insurance still cover me for vehicle damages and liability?

I'm not talking about deliberately breaking the law. For example, drinking a driving, or racing. I mean genuine, honest mistakes in the moment.

For example:

- I genuinely miss a red light while focussing on trying to navigate one of those mind-bendingly complicated roundabouts.

- I genuinely don't realise I'm in a 50mph zone instead of a 70mph - maybe there was only one sign so far and I missed it.

Everyone I've asked thinks I would not be covered, but those are just opinions and none of them are legal of insurance experts.

Liability insurance confuses me especially: it's hard to think of a scenario where I cause harm to someone else but not be break the law. What's the point of this insurance?

Obviously I know the best answer is to not make a mistake in the first place. But mistakes happen and I thought that's when insurance is meant to help. But I'm starting to doubt this.

Thanks for reading. Appreciate any insights!

[TC1474]

The way the law works is that you are required to have in force a minimum of Road Traffic act insurance cover which is in effect third party only and covers any injury caused to another person or their property, but will not cover you, or any damage caused to your vehicle as a result of your negligence.

If you are involved in a crash resulting in injury or damage to the third party, regardless of whether you committed an offence or not, providing you have cover in place it will cover you and pay out to the other side.

Likewise if another driver commits an offence and hits you, whether it be drink driving, dangerous driving, speed or anything, the other side will pay out to you as well.

The grey area comes where there is a question mark over causation. So for example, you may have committed an offence at the time of a crash, but the question then asked is "Was it a contributory factor to the cause of the crash?

This is where the issue of split liability will be discussed and it can get complicated.

But without dragging the answer out as I could rabbit on for ages as it gets more complicated) the basic answer is If you are insured and you are involved in a crash which is your fault, your insurance will cover you, the only real exception is if you are a disqualified driver and drive whilst disqualified no amount of insurance policies will cover you as you cannot hold insurance whilst disqualified.

Which as a quick follow on, if anyone is involved in a crash with either an uninsured driver or a driver that fails to stop (which is called untraced) then there is the option of claiming through the Motor Insurance Bureau (MiB) which we all contribute to when we pay our premiums.

[Drivingforfun]

To add to the above info (which I found useful), I might have understood this wrong but I think breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean it was your fault, either - i.e. the other party may still pay you

The example we are often given is if someone is speeding along a 30mph main road, we are expected to not pull out in front of them; the argument "if they were doing 30mph I'd have had time to pull out" doesn't work and we'd be liable ... i.e. the driver breaking the rules is not deemed at fault

Someone might correct me but that's my interpretation

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

To add to the above info (which I found useful), I might have understood this wrong but I think breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean it was your fault, either - i.e. the other party may still pay you

The example we are often given is if someone is speeding along a 30mph main road, we are expected to not pull out in front of them; the argument "if they were doing 30mph I'd have had time to pull out" doesn't work and we'd be liable ... i.e. the driver breaking the rules is not deemed at fault

Someone might correct me but that's my interpretation

You are partly right. It gets a bit complicated so I will try and keep it simple.

When it comes to road crashes, there are two aspects of law that come into force. Road traffic law as in criminal law, and civil law which deals with the claim side of the legal process.

If an offence has been committed (as I mentioned in my first post) some elements are called strict liability for example running into the back of another vehicle.(there are exceptions such as being brake tested, but it comes down to proof) but it is deemed as careless driving as the car at the rear is deemed as not having been driven at a distance that the driver was capable of stopping in the distance he/she could see to be clear (tailgating in simple terms) So the driver hitting the rear commits the offence of careless driving and is liable under civil law.

Another example is pulling out of a minor junction controlled by a Stop or Give Way sign/line into a major carriageway and being hit by a vehicle on the major road. The driver has ignored a statutory traffic sign and is guilty of an offence but may still not be fully liable for the cause of the crash.

In this example, the vehicle on the major carriageway may have been travelling well in excess of the speed limit, but under civil law it would have to be established that the excess speed directly contributed to the cause of the crash. If this cannot be established then the driver pulling out would have to accept full liability.

A disqualified driver cannot be on the road legally and cannot be insured, but many do still drive. It has happened many times where the disqualified driver has been involved in a bad crash and been left with life changing injuries due to the negligence and bad driving of a legal driver.

It does not prevent the disqualified driver from making a claim against the legally insured driver as it has been held that whilst the disqualified driver should not have been on the road, had it not been for the negligence of the third party who caused the crash, it is likely that the disqualified driver would have reached his destination in one piece albeit illegally. The disqualified driver would still be prosecuted but the civil claim would still continue with as a claimant.

A motorcyclist who does not wear a crash helmet or more commonly does not have it done u is guilty of an offence.

If a crash occurs caused by someone else, then the court will determine if the fact that the helmet was missing or not done up contributed to the seriousness of the injuries (assuming injuries were sustained) and if so to what degree which is where we then have to look at what is called contributory negligence which means that the driver causing the crash is still held primarily liable, but if it is deemed that the riders lack of helmet increased his risk of injury by (for example) 30%, then the driver of the car will only become liable for 70% of the value of the injuries and the rider will be responsible for the remaining 30% so on a £1000 claim (again as an example) the car driver would only pay out just over £660 of the claim.

There are loads of other examples and I am probably already boring the pants of you, but I hope you get the gist of what I am saying.

Someone who commits an offence and is involved in a crash is not necessarily precluded from making a claim, it all comes down to circumstances, facts, evidence and the nature of the offence committed and even then the actions of other parties also have to be looked at.

The difference between criminal law and civil law is that in criminal law, the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt which is quite a high bar.

In civil law the burden of proof is on the balance of probability of 51% or better so the bar is much lower and and easier to use evidence that cannot be used in criminal law.

Hope that sort of explains things for you?

[ben001]

Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

It's reassuring to hear firstly that insurance would generally cover me for damages to others (my primary concern, albeit not my expectation!) even if they occurred from my own fault and/or breaking the law. It's also reassuring to hear there's some process in place even for uninsured / disqualified drivers.

The issue of split liability doesn't concern me right now - although I'm sure it will if I ever am involved in such a "grey area" situation!

A lingering question / concern: after paying out, could the insurer try to recoup the money from me in such an at-fault / breaking-the-law event*? I assume/hope not unless they say so in their Ts & Cs, which would mean the insurer is basically acting as a kind of loan provider - the loan being the compensation paid to the third party, and me paying it back to the insurer.

*I'm asking about normal third party driving insurance here, but actually this thread was prompted by me reading the Ts & Cs for Enterprise Car Club (ECC), which (in summary) say I would have to repay all money paid by their insurance if I had an accident while breaking any driving law (accidental or not). I mainly want to know about normal third part driving insurance though: the more I learn about ECC the more I want to avoid them and just get my own car / insurance - but it still leaves me wondering what I would actually be covered for, and whether I would end up paying anyway.

(Although tangential, if it's of interest I can share some conversations with ECC where they double down on me paying for everything.)

[Rolebama]

Another driver was trying to get a blame case against me because I rear-ended him. Instead of claiming as a mistake on my part, he tried to claim I deliberately rammed him between three and seven times. I queried as to whether I was insured to deliberately ram other cars. I was quite surprised when they answered in the affirmative.