Third Party and Public Liability Insurance - Advice Sought

[JimA]

Hi,

As I'm quite new to the forum and just read 'The New 2012 Xipi' thread, I was wondering how many members have third party and public liability insurance? Before I bought my bike, I checked the forum advice on insurance, balancing the benefits of having it on my home insurance against a dedicated policy; I was more concerned with theft at the time and, as I'm a Scot, the home insurance won the debate since it was much cheaper and giving me up to £2000 theft cover. Now I'm not so sure that this was the right decision given some of the comments on the thread. My bike is legal but believe that my home insurance policy wouldn't be much help if I accidently hurt someone or damaged property in an accident.

As I said, just wondering how many members are insured against such events, or am I just getting paranoid after reading the very strong views on legal its and bits in the Xipi thread?

 

[Cyclezee]

Hi Jim,

I am neither lawyer nor insurance expert, just a simple Scot that believes in simple logic

If anyone is going to do something illegal, an insurance policy is not going to offer protection, so what is the point in paying for one?

 

[amigafan2003]

If anyone is going to do something illegal, an insurance policy is not going to offer protection, so what is the point in paying for one?

Not true.

Whilst you would not be covered for damage to yourself or your bike in the event of an accident, insurers cannot void third party liabilities - i.e. if you hit someone they would be covered under the thrid party element of the insurance as the thrid party element of the contract is between the thrid party and your insurer, not between you and the insurer, thus the third party would not have done anything to void the contract which would exclude them being covered.

Only if the third party was to blame for the accident could the insurer could refuse to honour the third party element.

Generic third party liability cover will suffice for most issue - which is included on most home policies up to the value of £1million. Most people will thus already be insured iro third parties without even realising it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance

Many of the public and product liability risks are often covered together under a general liability policy. These risks may include bodily injury or property damage caused by direct or indirect actions of the insured

You could argue that knowingly riding an illegal ebike would introduce a tort condition invalidating cover but in English law the following would have to be satisfied:-

Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death). You'd have to directly ride the bike at someone on purpose with the intention of doing them harm for this to be invoked.

Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.[4][5][6] As above - no one could argue that riding a slightly illegal ebike is certain to result in injury to a third party. many people do so everyday without any consequence.

Knowingly: the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur See above - no one could sensibly argue that riding an illegal ebike is likely to result in a accident

Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not[7][8][9] For this to be met they'd have to demonstrate that you wouldn't mind being involved in an accident. I don't think anyone could reasonable argue a cyclist would be happy to be involved in a crash!

Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences This is actually the one they might try arguing for but they'd still struggle as riding an illegal ebike (or uninsured/unregistered motorised vehicle) is actually a very low mens rea. They'd also struggle to successfully argue, as in a couple of points above, that simply riding an illegal ebike would obviously result in an accident. The defence "but I can ride a normal cycle at 25mph without crashing" would be ample to defeat this argument.

 

[GaRRy]

you need to read it all.

From section insurable risks : -

In other words, liability insurance does not protect against liability resulting from crimes or intentional torts committed by the insured.

So if you are breaking the law you are not covered

 

[amigafan2003]

So if you are breaking the law you are not covered

I've covered that

A question for you.

Q: If you drive a car without a valid MOT, but you have fully comp insurance, and your involved in a "fault"" acciedent:-

1: Is your insurance invalid?
2: Would your insurance pay for damages inflicted to a third party?
3: Would the insurance pay for damages to your car?

 

[muckymits]

I've covered that

A question for you.

Q: If you drive a car without a valid MOT, but you have fully comp insurance, and your involved in a "fault"" acciedent:-

1: Is your insurance invalid?
2: Would your insurance pay for damages inflicted to a third party?
3: Would the insurance pay for damages to your car?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

Seen this a few times

 

[tillson]

Not true.

Whilst you would not be covered for damage to yourself or your bike in the event of an accident, insurers cannot void third party liabilities - i.e. if you hit someone they would be covered under the thrid party element of the insurance as the thrid party element of the contract is between the thrid party and your insurer, not between you and the insurer, thus the third party would not have done anything to void the contract which would exclude them being covered.

Only if the third party was to blame for the accident could the insurer could refuse to honour the third party element.

Generic third party liability cover will suffice for most issue - which is included on most home policies up to the value of £1million. Most people will thus already be insured iro third parties without even realising it.

Liability insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You could argue that knowingly riding an illegal ebike would introduce a tort condition invalidating cover but in English law the following would have to be satisfied:-

Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death). You'd have to directly ride the bike at someone on purpose with the intention of doing them harm for this to be invoked.

Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.[4][5][6] As above - no one could argue that riding a slightly illegal ebike is certain to result in injury to a third party. many people do so everyday without any consequence.

Knowingly: the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur See above - no one could sensibly argue that riding an illegal ebike is likely to result in a accident

Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not[7][8][9] For this to be met they'd have to demonstrate that you wouldn't mind being involved in an accident. I don't think anyone could reasonable argue a cyclist would be happy to be involved in a crash!

Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences This is actually the one they might try arguing for but they'd still struggle as riding an illegal ebike (or uninsured/unregistered motorised vehicle) is actually a very low mens rea. They'd also struggle to successfully argue, as in a couple of points above, that simply riding an illegal ebike would obviously result in an accident. The defence "but I can ride a normal cycle at 25mph without crashing" would be ample to defeat this argument.

Rubbish. This person has posted incorrect information regarding insurance in the past. He has a track record, so be warned and ignore his advice on this one. It looks like he's just found out how to cut and paste this time.

If you are riding an illegal eBike, you are an uninsured driver. Home insurance policies don't and never will cover you for the use of a motor vehicle. If you have substantial assets such as a house or savings, the injured person may well go after them. Your home insurance company will walk away.

If you bike fits the legal definition of an ebike, it will be regarded as a pedal cycle by your home insurers and you will be covered in the event of injuring someone else.

If you wanted dedicated third party cycle insurance, I posted a link to British Cycling where you can get it for about £12 a few days ago.

That's about it really.

 

[amigafan2003]

Rubbish. This person has posted incorrect information regarding insurance in the past. He has a track record, so be warned and ignore his advice on this one. It looks like he's just found out how to cut and paste this time.

It's not rubbish - but of course it's upto you whether to believe me or not - I'm not going to be able to change your mind without it being tested in a court of law.

BTW - I am trained in contract law (via my work as a Trade Union personal case rep and negotiator), which included two modules on insurance But then anyone can pretend to have any qualification they like on the internet can't they? ;-P

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

Seen this a few times

Give that man a cookie.

So, illegally driving a vehicle with no MOT and void insurance but still insured for the purposes of third party liability, who'd have thunk it

 

[PJM]

I think there is some confusion here. The liability of insurers to deal with a third party claim for road traffic accidents relates to motor vehicles and not pedal cycles electric or otherwise.

The section of the Road Traffic Act is 152.

Obviously if the electric bycycle was registered as a moped and plated it would require insurance and it would then apply.

There is no obligation for a cyclist to be insured even for third party risks. However if it was shown that the cyclist was negligent they may have a civil claim against him directly.

There would be no obligation for the home insurers or cycle insurers to deal with any claim at law.

My experience of RTA's involving cyclists is that they are always given a lot of leeway and most cases tend to go in their favour as in a similar way as pedestrians.

However if the cyclist was shown as riding an illegal machine that in itself would not prove negligence.

He would obviously commit road traffic act and construction and use offences but these are not concerned with civil redress or tort.

From many years of accident investigation I think the chances of a cycle being properly inspected are very slim. I would go to suggest it might only show up in a fatal accident. Now as most fatal accidents involving cyclists tend to be HGV's turning left and not seeing the cyclist at junctions the cyclist tends to not be at fault.

But I have only been involved in this arena for 23 years so what would I know ??????????????

 

[GaRRy]

You could argue that knowingly riding an illegal ebike would introduce a tort condition invalidating cover but in English law the following would have to be satisfied:-

Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death). You'd have to directly ride the bike at someone on purpose with the intention of doing them harm for this to be invoked.

Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.[4][5][6] As above - no one could argue that riding a slightly illegal ebike is certain to result in injury to a third party. many people do so everyday without any consequence.

Knowingly: the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur See above - no one could sensibly argue that riding an illegal ebike is likely to result in a accident

Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not[7][8][9] For this to be met they'd have to demonstrate that you wouldn't mind being involved in an accident. I don't think anyone could reasonable argue a cyclist would be happy to be involved in a crash!

Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences This is actually the one they might try arguing for but they'd still struggle as riding an illegal ebike (or uninsured/unregistered motorised vehicle) is actually a very low mens rea. They'd also struggle to successfully argue, as in a couple of points above, that simply riding an illegal ebike would obviously result in an accident. The defence "but I can ride a normal cycle at 25mph without crashing" would be ample to defeat this argument.

Love the edit after my reply.
Direct intention: - agree

Oblique intention :- sort of agree but many people drive cars every day without insurance and that is not right either and punishable with inprisonment (and as a illegal ebike is a uninsured/untaxed etc motor vehicle ??????)

Knowingly :- wrong you are knowingly using illegal vehicle so this would apply

Recklessness:- wrong as the vehicle is not legal its use on the road is reckless (just like knowingly driving a car with no brakes)

Criminal negligence: - wrong by riding a illegal bike you are comitting a criminal offence end of argument.

So by my count they have you on three counts, can still get you on one other. I wouldnt want to go to court and argue my case on those odds.


Oh and even if you win all the above you are still not covered because you are committing a criminal act.

 

[PJM]

I think what you are talking about here is: 'Ex Turpi Causa'. However the mere fact that you are breaking several road traffic act and construction and use laws is not going to make you negligent per se.

Each case will be judged on its own merits and morality will not come into it.

I know we have all been told about the cycle and bus case but I am yet to see any result or sufficient details to make this anything other than an urban myth at this stage.

In the civil world it may well end up being used to reduce any settlement the cyclist might receive.

As to Police actively going out of their way to track down and prosecute cyclists for riding illegal e-bikes I see that as extremely unlikely. You will have to be drawing attention to yourself in a big way to draw attention to yourself from an already overworked and mainly disinterested and disgruntled Police force who have generally lost the will to do any real Police work.

I would love to have a high power torque option for hill climbing. It does not mean I want to ride at 30mph but just bob along at around 15 - 17mph and climb any hill in my path.

From what I see on this forum the vast majority of the members do not seem bent on breaking the law. However I think that the current limits are punitive and will limit the acceptance of the e-bike in the UK as a a real transport alternative. For a flat landscape like Holland it works well but not in the generally hilly UK.

 

[tillson]

It's not rubbish - but of course it's upto you whether to believe me or not - I'm not going to be able to change your mind without it being tested in a court of law.

Message for the Original Poster: (I think that all he wants to know is if his house insurance covers him when he's out on his bike)

We need to be clear what a bicycle is: As you know it can be a bike in the traditional form as we think of one. It can also be a bicycle that has electrical assistance as long as it conforms to a set number of parameters and conditions. Weight, power, max assist speed being the common ones. As long as it fits these parameters, it is a bicycle.

If it does not conform to the parameters above and has, say a 350 Watt motor, it isn't a bicycle and is most likely a mechanically propelled vehicle (in law not by scientific definition).

If you have a bicycle and that includes a legal ebike, then it is highly likely that you have at least £1M of cover for third party liability via your home insurance (check). So if you collide with someone who is using a pedestrian crossing on your legal ebike and break their leg, you would be covered on your home insurance if they made a claim against you.

If you did the same on an ebike with a 350 watt motor, you would not be covered in any way by your home insurance. That is because you were using a mechanically propelled vehicle at the time. Its the same as not bothering with car insurance and trying to rely on home insurance instead. You would be personally liable for compensating the victim for any injuries and if you have assets such as a house or savings, they would be in jeopardy.

What are the chances of getting caught? If you are just riding about minding your own business, slim to nil. If only you are injured in an accident, unlikely. If you seriously injure someone else, I would say it is highly likely that the police will take your bike away and have it tested. The fact that it has a motor on it is going to instantly make a copper curious and want to investigate in those circumstances.

I don't need to tell you that insurance comes in different types. There is insurance for cars, homes, personal belongings, your life, your person liability and the list goes on. There exists a certain amount of overlap and you can end up insuring twice if you are not careful. Insurance is no different to any other product, you buy a tin of soup if you are hungry or a tin of paint if you want to protect your window frames. I don't care if he is a union representative who has been on a module, amigafan2003 is effectively telling you to paint your windows with Ox-tail soup and to drink the paint.

BEWARE OF HIM.

 

[amigafan2003]

Knowingly :- wrong you are knowingly using illegal vehicle so this would apply

Wrong. For it to apply you would have to ride an illegal ebike "knowing" that doing so would cause an accident. I think we can all agree that riding an illegal ebike doesn't automatically mean you're going to have an accident.

Recklessness:- wrong as the vehicle is not legal it use on the road is reckless (just like knowingly driving a car with no brakes)

Wrong again. Riding an illegal ebike is not a reckless activity in itself, just like driving a car without an mot isn't neccesarily reckless.

Criminal negligence: - wrong by riding a illegal bike you are comitting a criminal offence end of argument.

Wrong again - hat trick! In order for criminal negligence to count it would have to be assumed that by riding an illegal ebike a reasonable person would assume that an accident or injury to a third party would be the likely outcome. Again, I think we can all agree that riding an illegal ebike will not in itself result in a significantly increased chance of having an accident or causing injury to a third pary.

I wouldnt want to go to court and argue my case on those odds.

good for you I'm quite happy (and confident) however to do so.

 

[amigafan2003]

If you did the same on an ebike with a 350 watt motor, you would not be covered in any way by your home insurance. That is because you were using a mechanically propelled vehicle at the time.

So, playing devils advocate for a moment then, if it's now classed as a motor vehicle does that mean you'd be covered on your "driving other vehicles" part of your car insurance policy as long as someone else owns the "bike"?

BEWARE OF HIM.

Best advice you've given all year!

OP:- Don't believe ANYTHING written on the internet - do your own enquiries and do your own research - don't listen to me, tilson, flecc, eddieo or anyone else. You're responsible for your own safety and the safety of others - the buck stops with you.

 

[Mike63]

If you bike fits the legal definition of an ebike, it will be regarded as a pedal cycle by your home insurers and you will be covered in the event of injuring someone else.

I paid an extra £16 to insure my named e bike on my home insurance.
Two months into the policy they rang to say that it was a mistake and were withdrawing the cover on my bike and refunding the £16.

Not being sure where I stood I insured for 3rd party with Cycleguard...I think £23 year.
....my bike is no longer insured.

Would you feel that I did not need the policy with Cycleguard being covered for 3rd. party with my household insurance ?

....Mike

 

[GaRRy]

Wrong. For it to apply you would have to ride an illegal ebike "knowing" that doing so would cause an accident. I think we can all agree that riding an illegal ebike doesn't automatically mean you're going to have an accident.

So if you know there is no chance of accident why do you need insurance ?.

again. Riding an illegal ebike is not a reckless activity in itself, just like driving a car without an mot isn't neccesarily reckless.

Yes it is in the eyes of the law thats why you can be penalised for doing so.

again - hat trick! In order for criminal negligence to count it would have to be assumed that by riding an illegal ebike a reasonable person would assume that an accident or injury to a third party would be the likely outcome. Again, I think we can all agree that riding an illegal ebike will not in itself result in a significantly increased chance of having an accident or causing injury to a third pary.

Just the act of using it is a criminal act, the possible out come is irrelevant. You are involved in a criminal activity and as such are automatically not covered.

for you I'm quite happy (and confident) however to do so.

Other than the possible consequences for the rest of us if this ever happens I would love to see this . At least then we would have a definitive answer.

 

[GaRRy]

So, playing devils advocate for a moment then, if it's now classed as a motor vehicle does that mean you'd be covered on your "driving other vehicles" part of your car insurance policy as long as someone else owns the "bike"?

No because the vehicle is not road legal

 

[GaRRy]

Not being sure where I stood I insured for 3rd party with Cycleguard...I think £23 year.
....my bike is no longer insured.

Would you feel that I did not need the policy with Cycleguard being covered for 3rd. party with my household insurance ?

....Mike

Probably not but depends exactly what it covers as standalone policies can/do cover to higher level (e.g. 10 mill rather than 1/2 mill etc) and may cover you in situations your household policy does not.

Personally from a situation I've personally been involved in I'm not sure any of them are much cop if you really end up in the S***. (With out going into details the insurance companies involved did all they could to avoid paying out including arguing the policy was not valid causing years of anguish and worry for the people involved (on both sides) ).

 

[amigafan2003]

So if you know there is no chance of accident why do you need insurance ?.

I don't have insurance (or home insurance).

Yes it is in the eyes of the law thats why you can be penalised for doing so.

So are you telling me you can't leggally drive a car without an MOT?

Just the act of using it is a criminal act, the possible out come is irrelevant. You are involved in a criminal activity and as such are automatically not covered.

As I've already said, it depends on the level of mens rea but you're not listening so I'm not going to bother trying again.

Other than the possible consequences for the rest of us if this ever happens I would love to see this . At least then we would have a definitive answer.

I'll be sure to post on here to let everyone know!

 

[GaRRy]

So are you telling me you can't leggally drive a car without an MOT?

Other than special circumatances yes
eg doesnt need to have a MOT
a) If less than 3 years old
b) Direct to/from MOT testing centre
c) Trade plates (could be conditions on this but not in trade so cant be sure)

Im sure there may be others but otherwise it is a offence (£1000 fine) and if real unlucky could get done for no insurance as well as no MOT invalidates it (£5000 fine + penalty points)