New Privy Council ruling: Named Drivers Only

[noobie]

you pay LESS Premiums if you get an insurance policy that covers only yourself.

So if you are paying LESS for that type of insurance, why expect more insurance coverage than you are paying for and get upset when the company sticks to the policy?

You can still get a policy that is full comprehensive and covers ALL drivers of the car over 25 for example. You would just pay more for such a policy.

The only fault of the insurance companies in all this is if they are misrepresenting the scope of coverage to the public, and I kinda doubt that. You need to ASK for a named policy, and you need to submit the names of those covered. How then could you claim you thought ANYONE was covered? Why have to submit names then?

[TRAE]

so if i wanna have a designated driver what is my option now

[Country_Bookie]

Further evidence of why we need to break away completely from the Privy Council. These retards are completely useless to our society.

[ingalook]

OK... on the receiving end of this ruling

2 years ago I was in an accident with a Presidential vehicle where I almost lost my leg, got away with a couple severed tendons, had surgery etc. - still have a bit of a limp... waited to see how everything healed got my documents together and submitted my claim, needles to say my medical bills alone were "big money" as far as I am concerned.

I received a letter saying they don't have to pay me since the guy driving was not named on the policy, and they do not have to pay me sighting this very same ruling

I am not sure what I am supposed to do now... my accident was "small thing", supposed one of these drivers crashes into a R35 or massively damages government property? Isn't the reason Third party insurance is the minimum required by law is to protect against such occurrences?

[moving]

u need to get a good lawyer
I guess u will have to sue the person who was driving the car for damages.

Since presidential say they not liable as it covers Named Drivers only.
Shouldn't the driver be charged for driving without insurance since they are not named drivers?

[ingalook]

u need to get a good lawyer
I guess u will have to sue the person who was driving the car for damages.

Since presidential say they not liable as it covers Named Drivers only.
Shouldn't the driver be charged for driving without insurance since they are not named drivers?

Yeah, may work in my case... but for other people this is not really an option... usually people with third party cheap insurance like this are sufferers

[ingalook]

Based on my non-lawyer opinion, you don't need to touch the ruling on this issue, it is far easier to make these type of "fly-by-night" policies illegal

[pugboy]

get a lawyer, these companies are known for sending these kind of false delaying type letters knowing quite well the info is false.

they are not "fly by night"
they probably insure the majority of vehicles on the road...

[Sky]

Naming an additional driver over 25 with 3+ yrs shouldn't affect the premium, or at least that's was I was told when I was asked if I wanted to add anyone.
Claiming for an accident while a driver under 25 or 3+ yrs was gonna break the policy anyway.

The trouble starts when men have 9-10 B15 and have yutes working them.
Or company pool vehicles.

[wagonrunner]

The trouble starts when men have 9-10 B15 and have yutes working them. Or company pool vehicles.

correct.
or even a family with thirty something vehicles which can be used by any relative.
Which ever vehicle is closest to the road or to the required need goes.
Thats a lot of names per vehicles.

[paparazzi]

OK... on the receiving end of this ruling

2 years ago I was in an accident with a Presidential vehicle where I almost lost my leg, got away with a couple severed tendons, had surgery etc. - still have a bit of a limp... waited to see how everything healed got my documents together and submitted my claim, needles to say my medical bills alone were "big money" as far as I am concerned.

I received a letter saying they don't have to pay me since the guy driving was not named on the policy, and they do not have to pay me sighting this very same ruling

I am not sure what I am supposed to do now... my accident was "small thing", supposed one of these drivers crashes into a R35 or massively damages government property? Isn't the reason Third party insurance is the minimum required by law is to protect against such occurrences?

The ruling does not apply in instances where the policy states allows "persons over the age of xx who have the permission of the insured/owner"

The ruling is confined to "named drivers only" policies e.g "policyholder & ingalook". In that case if another person, John Doe, was driving the vehicle the insurer would be entitled to refuse the claim, even if John Doe had the policyholder's permission.

[ingalook]

^^^ That is exactly the type of policy the guy had, and it seems that this is the type of policy that Presidential specialises in - which would explain why they took this matter to the Privy council in the first place.

I understand the ruling based on the principles governing insurance, however I believe this type of insurance defeats the whole reason behind insurance being required by law.

These policies exist only so the insurance companies can make a quick buck with minimal risk and the insured gets the minimal amount of insurance to "legally" drive on the road at the lowest price.

If I go sue this guy now many people will want to know why I "advantaging" a sufferer... forgetting of course that I walked with crutches for 6 months and had to stop taking part in Dex and Drag&Wine etc, can no longer play football etc. (coulda never really play...) had to have my pregnant wife taking care of me - when it was supposed to be the other way around... things are better now, but surely I didn't look for any of those things to happen to me

[pete]

And on top of that even if you do sue it would take forever and even if they award you money they may not give it right away. In trinidad it seems is always better to be the one breaking the law.

[pugboy]

can driver be still charged with "no insurance" since it was a named policy ?

[shake d livin wake d dead]

cyah borrow car again,in essence

[Aaron 2NR]

And on top of that even if you do sue it would take forever and even if they award you money they may not give it right away. In trinidad it seems is always better to be the one breaking the law.

actually if you start this chase before 1 year is up, your case can be called in a few months....organize a good lawyer, not a fly by night, and get a chaser letter out to the person who was driving the car, giving them 30days to pay...if extension is asked, give it to show that you are being fair. after that file ur case

[link]

This was a case where the policy said "X and Y only" allowed to drive the car. Z drove the car with permission of the insured.

The ruling does not affect policies that says "X and any other driver over the age of 25 with consent of the insured"

http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/docs/jcpc-2011-0062-judgment.pdf

Rowley's interpretation of the Judgement is wrong.

rowley's interpretation is CONVENIENT.....so that it throws Government in a bad light........& the newspaper article plays along with the deliberate misinformation by not doing simple verification of facts..........if it was so easy for paparazzi to supply the weblink ...WHY DID THE NEWSPAPER MISLEAD THE PUBLIC BY GIVING ROWLEY'S UNTRUTHS CREDENCE ???
.
RGDS

[crazychinee]

my Policy is under a company name, and only the company is listed.

It states that anyone is insured, with the permission of the owner.

Am I safe

[ras_elmo]

I believe so...once you were authorized to drive it by someone who has that authority not a co-worker so says go ahead an "take a borrows" or "tief a chance".

[rollingstock]

This was a case where the policy said "X and Y only" allowed to drive the car. Z drove the car with permission of the insured.

The ruling does not affect policies that says "X and any other driver over the age of 25 with consent of the insured"

http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/docs/jcpc-2011-0062-judgment.pdf

Rowley's interpretation of the Judgement is wrong.

rowley's interpretation is CONVENIENT.....so that it throws Government in a bad light........& the newspaper article plays along with the deliberate misinformation by not doing simple verification of facts..........if it was so easy for paparazzi to supply the weblink ...WHY DID THE NEWSPAPER MISLEAD THE PUBLIC BY GIVING ROWLEY'S UNTRUTHS CREDENCE ???
.
RGDS

Posted: 23/8/12

Rowley is one stupid bake.

What I've realized is that persons read the initial post but did not understand the ruling of the Privy Council.

#unnecessarybeatup.

[redmanjp]

when we go stop needing d privy council and start using CCJ?

[Redman]

get a lawyer, these companies are known for sending these kind of false delaying type letters knowing quite well the info is false.

they are not "fly by night"
they probably insure the majority of vehicles on the road...

Which makes them fly by night.
It's cheaper for them to frustrate a claimant in this way than it is to pay.
Regardless of what is right they will avoid paying at all cost.

It's against the spirit of insurance..

[Aaron 2NR]

just spoke to my corp rep at maritime....once drivers are over 25 and have permission from the company, they are covered under the policy...