Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 25,081
- Location
- London, UK
In my experience the insurance companies here in the U.S. will do just about anything they can to get out of paying a claim; it wouldn't surprise me to find that somewhere in their morass of clauses it was stated the vehicle wasn't covered during non-business hours and/or was being used for non-business reasons. Of course, his supervisors at the company could easily lie and say he was on the clock and making a special run, so...
I suspect that's very much the case. I sometimes wonder am I more aware of these things as a result of having studied law, but yeah, insurance will try anything to minimise payments. When our house was burgled while we were on holidays in 1991, the insurance company who had charged my parents more to insure a number of items as antiques then claimed the fact that they were "old, so wear and tear" as an excuse to pay out less.
Also, if he had chosen "not to own a car" I have to wonder if his driver's license was still valid.
I assume that varies depending on local rules? I have heard of places in the US where you have to take the test again every few years. Over here, once you have your licence that's it. Once you hit seventy, you have to reapply for your licence every three years (instead of every ten), but there's no test, you just have to reapply and self-certify you're not disqualified for any one of a number of set health reasons, and confirm that you meet the eye-sight requirements. The upshot of this is that I haven't driven for twenty-two years as of last week, but I still have a valid driving licence (very handy for ID purposes) so in theory could hire a car and drive through London tomorrow. In practice, were I to buy my own vehicle, I would pay handsomely for insurance (though not as much as I would have at seventeen) as I've not spent a couple of decades building up a no claims bonus.