Bike Falling of Roof Mounted Rack

[vernon]

As meic has repeatedly pointed out, a motor policy must provide at least third party cover. Since most third party claims involve negligence, the insurer cannot opt out of their responsibilities towards the third party, just because the insured driver was negligent. In some circumstances they may pay the third party then seek to recover from the insured.

However, the insured driver is required to be careful and in certain circumstances they may refuse to meet a claim. (Leave your keys in the car and they probably won't pay out if it's stolen. This is not a third party claim.)

The third party insurance is to cover damage caused by the vehicle not by the vehicle's load. My pal was done for the damage caused to a van by a set of ladders that became deatched from some roof bars. Not only was he held personally liable for the damage to the van i.e. he had to pay out of his own pocket as his insurance policy did not cover anything other than damage caused to or by his vehicle and/or trailer but he also was prosecuted for having an insecure load and picked up points and a fine.

Personal libaility might be covered by some of the 'bolt' ons that insurace companies offer or by any personal liability cover that might be present in a household insurance policy.

The original poster also can not reasonably expect to receive an insurance payout for his bike as his motor insurance is as it state, motor insurance for his car. Once again his household insurance policy might have cover for accidental loss or damage to items - a close scrutiny of the household policy might just pay dividends.

[meic]

Well Starlaw things aren't looking good. Lots of disagreement about what the interpretation SHOULD be but it appears there is a precedent against you.
If it was to go to dispute and it could not be settled in the small claims court then you are far better off to pay the third party yourself. It may be worth pursuing in the small claims court as you cant lose thousands however I dont think I would go that way unless I could find a precedent in my favour.
Possibly you could try and pursue the manufacturer of the rack if you could prove the fault was due to its failure. That is more likely to make lawyers wealthier than anything else.
Thank You for bringing this up, it goes to show that insurance companies offer peace of mind and dont deliver when things go wrong. The threat of prosecution and damage to the bikes has always made me carefull about the loads but I didnt think that I was uninsured.
It would be a good thing if this was much better publicised as I often see unsafe loads, have had stuff fall off vehicles onto the pavement outside and fall off vehicles on the road in my view.
Everytime that I have experience of the legal system my opinion of it is lessened.

[vernon]

Well Starlaw things aren't looking good. Lots of disagreement about what the interpretation SHOULD be but it appears there is a precedent against you.
If it was to go to dispute and it could not be settled in the small claims court then you are far better off to pay the third party yourself. It may be worth pursuing in the small claims court as you cant lose thousands however I dont think I would go that way unless I could find a precedent in my favour.
Possibly you could try and pursue the manufacturer of the rack if you could prove the fault was due to its failure. That is more likely to make lawyers wealthier than anything else.
Thank You for bringing this up, it goes to show that insurance companies offer peace of mind and dont deliver when things go wrong. The threat of prosecution and damage to the bikes has always made me carefull about the loads but I didnt think that I was uninsured.
It would be a good thing if this was much better publicised as I often see unsafe loads, have had stuff fall off vehicles onto the pavement outside and fall off vehicles on the road in my view.
Everytime that I have experience of the legal system my opinion of it is lessened.

I don't think that it is as much a precedent as standard practice. Things that fall off vehicles are universally treated as an insecure load.

Starrying off topic slightly I recall reading of one incident where a motorist was prosecuted for having an insecure load inside his/her vehicle - a can of coke that rolled under a break pedal which prevented the motorist from breaking and caused him/her to crash into another vehicle. I remember being gob smacked by that - it might have been in Moriarty's Police Law a standard text for policemen swatting up for promotion.

[thirdcrank]

vernon

Time to share with us the source of your expertise. My general interpretation of what you say is that the main role of motor insurers is to allocate blame to others so they don't need to pay. While that strikes a certain chord with me, I would need a little convincing that they can avoid third party claims by saying that the insurance covers on;ly the vehicle, not anything carried on it.

Your example of the rolling drinks can (and police promotion exams have little to do with civil law, prosecutions even less) would mean that if the result of such an incident was that a car ploughed through a bus queue, killing or maiming several people, the driver's third party policy would not pay out. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the antics of insurance companies but I should be eager to know the factual basis for your argument.

[vernon]

vernon

Time to share with us the source of your expertise. My general interpretation of what you say is that the main role of motor insurers is to allocate blame to others so they don't need to pay. While that strikes a certain chord with me, I would need a little convincing that they can avoid third party claims by saying that the insurance covers on;ly the vehicle, not anything carried on it.

Your example of the rolling drinks can (and police promotion exams have little to do with civil law, prosecutions even less) would mean that if the result of such an incident was that a car ploughed through a bus queue, killing or maiming several people, the driver's third party policy would not pay out. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the antics of insurance companies but I should be eager to know the factual basis for your argument.

Having cited my Insurance docs for my motor cycle insurance docs which disclaimed responsibility for anything that could not be contrued as being a motor cycle or trailer and having said as much here. Scrutiny of my car insurance and my wifes today, sheesh, the things I have to do to convince the doubters also state that payouts are confined to damage caused by the vehicles or trailers but not the contents or other properties.

I really don't think that:

'We will not pay any claim arising from:

Damage to or caused by any property carried externally to your vehicle'

and its variant on the other policy can be interpreted in any other way.

Three policies, three different companies, one common disclaimer.

Only in the past month or so there was a clip on one of the "Police, Motorway, let's do 'em" type programs that showed a similar situation to that experienced by my pal. A pair of ladders had fallen off a van, no vehicles damaged, van driver picked up fixed penalty notice and points. I also failed to mention in an earlier post that my pal was made to pay for the damage to the other vehicle. Don't ask me how - it happened long ago and we are no longer in regular contact.

Now coming back to things falling off vehicles. No matter what the origianl protestor claims - the bikes falling off his roof rack will always be treated as an insecure load. He might not have done as most rack manufacturers recommend and that is to check the security of the fixings after a few miles and periodically after that during the journey.

If someone can find in the small print, an affordable motor policy that will pay out for damage caused by things falling off one's car do let me know and I'll be first in the queue to buy it.

Returning to the possible routes that the original poster might be able to get a payout is to look at what sort of cover his/her household policy might offer in the personal liability field. If someone could take the time to go through their documensts and offer succour to the original poster through finding a 'we cover all contingencies' clause I'd be very happy as I don't have the time to dig out the relevant docs from my wife's elaborately illogical household documents filing system.

Everything else that's been posted here that suggests that a payout might be forthcoming is just that, a series of suggestions and opinions that are unsupported by any precedent or evidence. My advice is based on experience and real events albeit a limited range

[thirdcrank]

Vernon

I have no doubt that it is a con & use offence (reg 100?) to have an insecure load. It is an offence to have a vehicle in a dangerous condition (Con & use reg 40??). People and companies are fined for these offences all the time.

I know that insurance companies will try 'every which way' to restrict their commercial activities to the collection of premiums. So, in many circumstances you are not covered for your own negligence, but, just about any way you might damage somebody else's vehicle involves negligence, usually negligent driving. In other words motor insurance often does cover negligence.

I can well believe that insurance companies do not as a rule cover damage to bikes on racks, especially if they fall off etc etc.

Having seen first hand the destruction that can be caused by an insecure load*, I simply find it hard to believe that in such cases, any injured party's hope of redress is dependent on the personal resources of the driver or owner of the vehicle, rather than thier compulsory 3rd party insurance.

* I have seen or personally dealt with: a car from a transporter landing on another; half inch thick sheets of steel sliding out sideways and becoming embedded in a wall at the other side of the footway; several tons of wood coming adrift; any number of milk crates fiull of bottles hitting the deck; a large detachable escape ladder (belonging to Leeds City Fire Brigade) coming adrift.

In short, I don't know and neither do you. (From your earlier posts I was beginning to assume you were involved in the insurance "industry".)

[vernon]

(From your earlier posts I was beginning to assume you were involved in the insurance "industry".)

Now that's almost defamation

Still waiting to hear from someone who's had the damage caused by wayward bikes paid for by their motor insurance....

[thirdcrank]

vernon

I'd be more interested to hear how they got on from somebody who made a claim as a third party for damages sustained in an insecure load incident, or who knows first hand of one. Or somebody who can authoratively explain the law. (I need no convincing that a policy can exclude liability to the policyholder.)