advice needed for a car park bump for my son

I think a ‘public access car-park’ is covered by each person’s insurance - be it fully comp or 3rd party only.

If you had a vehicle which was used entirely on your own land - you would not require specific insurance on it - BUT - if you drive your car to a public access space - you will require insurance and it continues to be in force
Read Vnuk, it is the current legal position.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
In the UK, a car park, for instance, one at Tesco’s or at a train station or the multi-storey owned by a council is a ‘public place’.

The drive to your house is, a ‘public place’, in the eyes of your Motor insurer, in the same way that the 20 yard strip of land on the side of the B261, that’s not a road and not a lay-by (but it it’s a great place to stop for a fag, piss and chin wag with likeminds when out hooning’) is a ‘public place’.

Next you’ll be telling us that theft of your awesome from your garage or drive is not covered, as that is not a ‘public place’ and your Motor policy as a whole was therefore not valid.
 
Read Vnuk, it is the current legal position.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

First reference found:

The implications of the Vnuk ruling - the recent ECJ case which means that cars driven solely on private property may need to be insured in future and all motor insurance policies amended
In the recent case of Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Trigalev (C-162/13) the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), in a matter referred to it by the Slovenian Supreme Court, considered the meaning of Article 3(1) of the First Directive on Motor Insurance (72/166/EEC).

The pertinent facts were that Mr Vnuk, a farmworker, was knocked off a ladder in a farmyard by a trailer attached to a tractor which was reversing across the yard. Mr Vnuk sought damages against the defendant insurer of the tractor.

The Slovenian courts ruled against Mr Vnuk. The reasoning was that a compulsory insurance policy under Slovenian law for a motor vehicle covered use of the tractor as a means of transport but not damage caused when a tractor was used as a machine or propulsion device.

The referral from the Slovenian Supreme Court was for the CJEU to determine whether the circumstances of the accident fell within the duty to insure 'the use of vehicles' within the meaning of Article 3(1).
 
As far as UK law and the application on Motor insurance is concerned, a car park, for instance one at Tesco’s or at a train station or the multi-storey owned by a council is a ‘public place’. The drive to your house is, a ‘public place’, too.

Next you’ll be telling us that theft of your awesome from your garage is not covered, as that is not a ‘public place’ and your Motor policy as a whole was therefore not valid.
 
First reference found:

The implications of the Vnuk ruling - the recent ECJ case which means that cars driven solely on private property may need to be insured in future and all motor insurance policies amended
In the recent case of Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Trigalev (C-162/13) the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), in a matter referred to it by the Slovenian Supreme Court, considered the meaning of Article 3(1) of the First Directive on Motor Insurance (72/166/EEC).

The pertinent facts were that Mr Vnuk, a farmworker, was knocked off a ladder in a farmyard by a trailer attached to a tractor which was reversing across the yard. Mr Vnuk sought damages against the defendant insurer of the tractor.

The Slovenian courts ruled against Mr Vnuk. The reasoning was that a compulsory insurance policy under Slovenian law for a motor vehicle covered use of the tractor as a means of transport but not damage caused when a tractor was used as a machine or propulsion device.

The referral from the Slovenian Supreme Court was for the CJEU to determine whether the circumstances of the accident fell within the duty to insure 'the use of vehicles' within the meaning of Article 3(1).
Yes, but the argument, as I understand it is whether vehicles that do not use the road (or public place) required insurance to cover them.

The ECJ decided yes they do.

This has major implications for motorsport, for example. What is the insured risk for a Motogp or F1 car, let alone a small club mx event ?

The forthcoming EU MID would have made it a requirement to insure off road vehicles too.

IMCO EU parliamentary committee voted 32 to 2 to exempt;

Only vehicles used in traffic as means of transport.

Dual use vehicles, only insurance on road.

Vehicles used exclusively for motorsport.

MEP's voted to exempt in January, EU Parliament voted last month. If EU council, EU Parliament and European Commission agree then Motorsport etc will not be covered by ruling.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
This has major implications for motorsport, for example. What is the insured risk for a Motogp or F1 car, let alone a small club mx event ?

The large organisers and professional race teams will already buy comprehensive third party liability insurance.

Smaller ones may well do too.

It’s nothing new.
 
The large organisers and professional race teams will buy comprehensive third party liability insurance.

Smaller ones may well do too.

It’s nothing new.

No they wont -

Vnuk Vs motorsport went to an ammended ruling case & won

Motorsport is excluded from the ruling.
 
The large organisers and professional race teams will buy comprehensive third party liability insurance.

Smaller ones may well do too.

It’s nothing new.
Who's going to place a realistic insurance value upon say Ferrari F1 ?

Tickets at motorsport events normally say; racing is dangerous and bad shit can happen.

If, as has happened before, a tyre landed into the crowd, now what, or some has a coming together or runs somebody off track.

Thankfully, it is academic as motorsports were exempted from MID.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
Who's going to place a realistic insurance value upon say Ferrari F1 ?

Tickets at motorsport events normally say; racing is dangerous and bad shit can happen.

If, as has happened before, a tyre landed into the crowd, now what, or some has a coming together or runs somebody off track.
kak

Multiple millions in third party insurance are available and bought for major events, anything from F1, to the Olympic Games to your local council.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2012/04/18/244043.htm

https://www.businessinsurance.com/a...al-insurers-get-set-for-Brazil-Olympics-risks



Of course the organiser would come have to be found liable at law, so the basic cover would be there for legal defences and / or for any out of court or negotiated settlement.
 
Multiple millions in third party insurance are readly available and bought for major events, anything from F1, to the Olympic Games to your local council.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2012/04/18/244043.htm

https://www.businessinsurance.com/a...al-insurers-get-set-for-Brazil-Olympics-risks


Of course the organiser would come have to be found liable at law, so the basic cover would be there for legal defences and / or for any out of court or negotiated settlement.
It isn't the 3rd party insurance that as I understand it being the issue. It is the requirement to have motor insurance that covers third party risks, not the same thing ???

I'm sure that Ferrari, Maclaren and the like can just self insure or have it added to their existing business cover.

But imagine the extra costs, assuming you could find cover for isde (poor example I know) or a small motorcycle club event.

I know that an idiot, ignoring everything he was told, hit a concrete block and ended up costing bike clubs insurers £100,000.

It is academic as motorsports are now exempted.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
Yes, but the argument, as I understand it is whether vehicles that do not use the road (or public place) required insurance to cover them.

The ECJ decided yes they do.

This has major implications for motorsport, for example. What is the insured risk for a Motogp or F1 car, let alone a small club mx event ?

The forthcoming EU MID would have made it a requirement to insure off road vehicles too.

IMCO EU parliamentary committee voted 32 to 2 to exempt;

Only vehicles used in traffic as means of transport.

Dual use vehicles, only insurance on road.

Vehicles used exclusively for motorsport.

MEP's voted to exempt in January, EU Parliament voted last month. If EU council, EU Parliament and European Commission agree then Motorsport etc will not be covered by ruling.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I’m sure I read recently that this whole idea of having to have insurance for off road / racing vehicles has been dropped ?
 
I’m sure I read recently that this whole idea of having to have insurance for off road / racing vehicles has been dropped ?
It has been voted against by EU on several fronts. Problem was that EU Motor Insurance Directive had to take Vnuk into account.

Thankfully wiser heads have prevailed.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
As mentioned previously surely the black box will have logged the bump in any event and I’m fairly sure he’ll find that it is one of the T’s & C’s that any accident is reported to them irrespective of whether a claim is being made.
 
It isn't the 3rd party insurance that as I understand it being the issue. It is the requirement to have motor insurance that covers third party risks, not the same thing ???

I'm sure that Ferrari, Maclaren and the like can just self insure or have it added to their existing business cover.

But imagine the extra costs, assuming you could find cover for isde (poor example I know) or a small motorcycle club event.

I know that an idiot, ignoring everything he was told, hit a concrete block and ended up costing bike clubs insurers £100,000.

It is academic as motorsports are now exempted.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

There are three separate conversations going on:

1. The belief that because the OP’s son’s coming together in a car park, as opposed to the main highway, it is somehow not subject to the normal insurance provisions. That belief is incorrect.

2. There is then the red herring that the European court has ruled that vehicles that are always on private land (ie never touch the road) should / must be insured, just as if they were ‘normal’ vehicles. What I assume the court was thinking of are vehicles like agricultural tractors or combines, particularly those in very rural or agricultural areas, who may well never touch a public highway in their life. Logically, this would by association embrace say. motorbikes and the like that are ragged about on by kids (and adults) in farmers’ fields, untaxed and not subject to any MOT provisions as, again, they never touch the highway.

3. Someone, why is not clear, then extended the European court’s ruling to embrace motorsport cars and the like, F1 being cited as an example. That leap has since been ruled out. Of course the organisers of large public events (and the teams participating) more often than not insure their liability to third parties extensively, often for many millions of pounds.


Bods can moan that the feckin’ courts are feckin’ mad. That moaning will cease when, when out walking their dog across farmer Gile’s field, their legs are chopped out and off from under them by little farmer Gile’s son (aged 9 3/4) and his brother aged 14, ragging a 50cc bike and a shonky 125. Similarly, bikermate Fat Bob from Barnsley, will be only too happy when myopic Mrs Boggins’ insurer coughs up £10,000 to repair the awsome GS she somehow contrived to knock over and then park on top of in Lidl’s ‘private’ carpark, ruining his day and his underpants in the process.
 
There are three separate conversations going on:

1. The belief that because the coming together in a public car park, as opposed to the main highway, it is somehow not subject to the normal insurance provisions. That belief is incorrect.

2. There is then the red herring that the European court has ruled that vehicles that are always on private land (ie never touch the road) should / must be insured, just as if they were ‘normal’ vehicles. What I assume the court was thinking of are vehicles like agricultural tractors or combines, particularly those in very rural or agricultural areas, who may well never touch a public highway in their life. Logically, this would associate embrace say. motorbikes and the like that are ragged about on by kids (and adults) in fields.

3. Someone, why is not clear, then extended the European court’s ruling to embrace motorsport cars and the like, F1 being sited as an example. That leap has since been ruled out. Of course the organisers of large public events (and the teams participating) more often than not insure their liability to third parties extensively, often for many millions of pounds.


Bods can moan that the feckin’ courts are feckin’ mad. That moaning will cease when, when out walking their dog across farmer Gile’s field, their legs are chopped out and off from under them by little farmer Gile’s son (aged 9 3/4) and his brother aged 14, ragging a 50cc bike and a shonky 125. Similarly, bikermate Fat Bob from Barnsley, will be only too happy when myopic Mrs Boggins’ insurer coughs up £10,000 to repair the awsome GS she somehow contrived to knock over and then park on top of in Lidl’s ‘private’ carpark, ruining his day and his underpants.
Agreed

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 


Back
Top Bottom