Update - Uninsured if SORN'd ? - Check yours !

[Number5]

Interesting one. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules except that if you haven't got insurance on a vehicle it must be SORN'd according to the Continuous Insurance Enforcement. Additionally, most car insurance policies will state that not having a current MOT Certificate (if required by law) would invalidate any claims - nothing about VED though.

Certainly with us, insurance can continue even when a vehicle is on SORN but by definition there'll be no road risk cover during that period.

Hope that helps.

Thank you. When you say 'with us', can you vouch that the above is the case for all Companies you broke for ?

 

[Crazy Harry]

Interesting one. I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules except that if you haven't got insurance on a vehicle it must be SORN'd according to the Continuous Insurance Enforcement. Additionally, most car insurance policies will state that not having a current MOT Certificate (if required by law) would invalidate any claims - nothing about VED though.

Certainly with us, insurance can continue even when a vehicle is on SORN but by definition there'll be no road risk cover during that period.

Hope that helps.

I don't think the issue is entirely around 'road risk'.

Firstly having to inform your insurers is one more task. An "automatically covered for road risk if taxed - unless going for or returning from prebooked MOT" would be less hassle.

Secondly - and perhaps more importantly would you require policy holders to inform you of SORN? Would you then reduce cover to TPFT for cars on SORN?

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

I've taken some time to look through the policy wordings of all the insurers we use. None require notification if you SORN the vehicle and want full cover to continue but if you do drive in a situation where a tax and MOT is required by law during that period your road cover will not be valid.

 

[Crazy Harry]

I've taken some time to look through the policy wordings of all the insurers we use. None require notification if you SORN the vehicle and want full cover to continue but if you do drive in a situation where a tax and MOT is required by law during that period your road cover will not be valid.

Thanks for your response - sure that we make a few people happy

 

[ph001]

but if you do drive in a situation where a tax and MOT is required by law during that period your road cover will not be valid.

...slightly off topic Chris, but can you clarify if underwriters are still obliged to cover third parties if for example the car is driven with no MOT? I ask because had a debate with a colleague the other day who was convinced that driving a car on the road with an expired mot could also lead you liable to prosecution for no insurance. I was of the opinion that you still were covered by the minimum required by law.... i.e third party only, even if you had no tax or mot.

 

[Number5]

I've taken some time to look through the policy wordings of all the insurers we use. None require notification if you SORN the vehicle and want full cover to continue but if you do drive in a situation where a tax and MOT is required by law during that period your road cover will not be valid.

I appreciate your response and effort Chris, but wouldn't you come to the same conclusion if reading Admiral's T&C's ? Its only when we asked them direct direct that we got told "No".

 

[Jembo]

I've taken some time to look through the policy wordings of all the insurers we use. None require notification if you SORN the vehicle and want full cover to continue but if you do drive in a situation where a tax and MOT is required by law during that period your road cover will not be valid.

I appreciate your response and effort Chris, but wouldn't you come to the same conclusion if reading Admiral's T&C's ? Its only when we asked them direct direct that we got told "No".

Believe it’s now clear opinions & heresay are irrelevant, as the phone advice a number of us initially received subsequently changed.

Instead, I suggest going forward it’s the responsibility of anyone who may SORN their vehicle to check the insurers terms at the time of inception / renewal, then get it in writing, because it’s clear there will never be one definitive answer.

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

...slightly off topic Chris, but can you clarify if underwriters are still obliged to cover third parties if for example the car is driven with no MOT? I ask because had a debate with a colleague the other day who was convinced that driving a car on the road with an expired mot could also lead you liable to prosecution for no insurance. I was of the opinion that you still were covered by the minimum required by law.... i.e third party only, even if you had no tax or mot.

There is some case law for this - Bristol Alliance Ltd Partnership v Williams (2011). It was held that in order to comply with Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act which requires a policy to cover any liability which might be incurred as a result of ‘use of the vehicle’, the policy had to be read to include liability against an innocent third party arising out of a deliberate act of the insured.

There was another instance more recently - the policyholder's uninsured son took his girlfriend out for a joyride in his father's vehicle (without the father's knowledge). He was involved in an accident where the girlfriend suffered injuries. The father's insurer had to payout for the injuries to the passenger.

I hope you bet your colleague for money!