To all the above; no, no, no.
It is likely that the lack of MOT will cause the insurance company to repudiate his claim. However, it will not void the insurance policy so the costs of repairing the lamp post will be met by his insurance.
With regards to his claim, he MAY be able to get away with it depending how good his insurers are and whether he can give a reasonable excuse to why he didn't have an MOT.
If they accept his explanation and he can prove he hasn't been using the car (other than to take it to get an MOT done or get work done for an MOT) then they may deal with his claim but deduct a percentage (of their choosing) from the settlement cheque he receives.
As I have worked at a large motor insurer for the past 4 years as a claims negotiator I can safely say that 8 out of 10 claims without an MOT are repudiated (turned down) but we do sometimes deal with them if the customer has provided us with a reasonable explantion.
It will not however voide his policy. Assuming he had an MOT when the policy was taken out, his policy will still be valid and as I said, the insurer will cover any third party damage caused by his vehicle.
2006-11-13 03:42:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
When you insure your car, you undertake an agreement to keep th car in a roadworthy state, ie mot it. Because the car is not mot,d the insurer could claim that the car was not roadworthy but they will also have to prove that this unroadworthiness caused the accident. I dont think that it will be too much of an issue providing of course that there was nothing wrong with the car. You may find that they will try to haggle the price of repairing or write off claim down.Good luck.
2006-11-12 22:06:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by jonjosar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It will negate his insurance. They won't pay-out as the car should not have been on a public road with an expired MOT certificate. Ooooops!!
He is also going to be paying out of his own pocket for anything else he has damaged, for example, the lamp-post, or whatever it was he crashed into.
This is getting expensive.....
2006-11-12 11:48:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Phish 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The insurance company will try to get out of paying a claim (that's how they make money) but they would have to prove that the accident would not have happened if the car had a current Mot.
2006-11-12 06:14:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
No valid MOT means no valid insurance.
The days of slipping someone a large drink for a back dated MOT have gone, the system is fully computerised and all info on MOT, Tax and Insurance is held by the DVLA including reports on cars that have been written off.
He'll have to swallow it and chalk it down to experience.
2006-11-12 05:52:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kyle 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
well hell be getting a bill for road furniture, and if plod get involved, hell get nicked for no MOT, but all teh insurance co will do is adjust the amount the pay out. they still have the car, so they may get an inspection, and your mate is no mot inspector so he hasnt got a clue as to whats going on under the car..if they find a serious fault like a track rod end failure, or brake pads down to the metal..they wont pay up...
2006-11-12 05:52:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Is a basic requirement of your insurance policy for the car to have valid documents, therefore - No MOT = No Cash.
2006-11-12 05:50:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The insurance policy specifies that the car must have proof of roadworthiness (an MOT certificate). If you don't have it, you are not insured!
2006-11-12 05:47:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
this is a grey area, but technically he has invalidated his insurance by not having a valid mot certificate. it depends on the leniency of the company. no tax will also invalidate insurance, insurance companies will do everything in their power to wriggle out of paying.
2006-11-12 09:34:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by dreamcatcher 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
He has no insurance.
There is no argument, if he has no MOT his insurance was void, thats is the end of it, they wont pay out.
Del is VERY wrong on this. they really will not pay out.
On the bright side, they wont report him to the police either.
2006-11-12 05:47:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋