|
|
|
|
Car Insurance News
Motoring and car insurance news
from our dedicated news team
Providing
background, context and analysis
on major news stories
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive car insurance
will cover
riot damage
9 Aug 2011
(updated 10 Aug to take account of latest expert
advice)
by Hugh Bryant
While most don't,
some car insurance
policies appear to exclude cover for riot damage. A typical exclusion
clause, such as that laid out in the Zurich car insurance policy
schedule, reads as follows: "any claim arising from or as a consequence of war,
invasion,
civil war, riot or civil commotion." However,
insurance industry representatives and many leading insurers are
advising that except where cover is third party, car owners will be
covered for riot damage.
It
was stated, for example, this morning (on BBC breakfast TV) by Graeme
Trudgill, Head of Corporate Affairs at the British Insurance Brokers'
Association (BIBA) that car owners are covered for damage to their
vehicle.
This is despite the fact that in some
cases where there is evidence of riot or civil
commotion, that the cover appears to specifically exclude compensation.
Therefore,
if rioters - or those taking part in a 'civil commotion' where a riot
has not been officially declared - torch your car, your car insurance provider should
provide compensation in each case.
As a result, even if your car insurance policy appears to exclude
compensation for
riot damage, you should still check with your insurer as the exclusion
clause is likely to relate to alternative circumstances to the current
situation according to insurance experts. The
Association of British Insurers (ABI) has also confirmed that car
owners with comprehensive car insurance will be compensated. The key is
to claim early, within one week of the loss.
The
local police service is statutorily liable to pay compensation for
losses and damage caused by a riot in England and Wales under the
arrangements of the 'Riot Damage Act, 1886'. As a result,
in recent history people have rarely been charged with a Section 1
offence (Riot).
One
example of this was the Poll tax demonstrations in 1990 in which no-one
was charged under Section 1. All offenders were charged by the police
for violent disorder offences that had just happened to take place in
one location.
This
is despite riot being defined in the 'Public Order Act 1986' thus:
(1)
Where twelve or more persons who are present together use or threaten
unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken
together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness
present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the
persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of
riot.
(2)
It is immaterial whether or not the twelve or more use or threaten
unlawful violence simultaneously.
(3)
The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.
(4)
No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be,
present at the scene.
(5)
Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.
If
there are less than twelve people present 'violent disorder' charges
are made. For a violent disorder charge, there must be at least three
people using or threatening unlawful violence together, and no common
purpose is required.
The
offence of 'riot' if it is brought, is punishable under the 'Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005', and carries a potential custodial
sentence of up to ten years imprisonment.
The
problem for the motorist with third party car insurance cover that is
uninsured for riot damage whose car
has been torched in the current
London riots or in other cities where criminal damage has occured, is
that if the police do not formally charge anyone with riot but instead
use violent disorder offences, then the statutory criterion for public
compensation of the motorist is not automatically triggered.
Even if there were
clearly more than twelve at the scene, proving a legal definition of
'riot' in individual cases of damage may be complex. Nonetheless,
insurers will pursue the police for
compensation for damage to property under the arrangments of the 1886
Act (which must occur within two weeks of the riot damage) although
they would not do this in relation to a car owner
where the policy excludes compensation.
If a riot-uninsured motorist wishes to seek compensation under these
circumstances, he
would need to mount a civil
action, probably on a 'group action' basis, against the police force in
which it would be necessary to
prove either that a legally defined 'riot' did occur (logistically
near-impossible in view of the statutory two week window*), or, on the
balance of probabilities, that the car was torched as a
direct result of their negligence, a scenario against which
the police could easily mount a robust defence, given the unpredictable
nature of these random acts of violence.
Unless the civil unrest is
officially recognised as 'a riot' by the police or government,
something that insurance providers and their legal representatives will
be working hard to bring about urgently if it does not happen without
their
pressure, then few lawyers would be willing to launch an individual or
group action on a 'no win, no fee' basis (to compensate riot-damaged
car and property owners) without it. It seems likely, however, that the
existence of a riot will be accepted by the authorities, improving the
opportunities for compensation even for the uninsured.
11 Aug update:
*increased to 42 days
by Government on 11 Aug 2011
|
back to
top
car
insurance supermarket
Copyright
© car insurance uk supermarket
|
|
|
|
|
| Media
Centre |
press releases,
research reports, industry analyses, article series, monthly news
briefs, blog and comment, buyers' guide
|
| Go >
|
|
|
