Illegal Cans.

Do these invalidate your insurance?

I ask because your insurer asks about mods and you can hardly say 'Yes,
I've got non-motable cans'.

So how come your insurance is still valid?

 

Never heard of it to happen but insurance companies will use ANY excuse to
not pay out. So it's not outwith the bounds of possibility that if you were
to have an accident and the policeman just happened to mention that the can
was illegal at the time of the spill that your insurance would then say your
bike was illegal so you can stuff being covered.

 

If they could be said to have contributeds to an accident your
insewerants company may try and wangle their way out of a claim. But
you can;t (or won't, according to JP) be prosecuted for having no
insurance.

 

Ace wrote:

What's the logic for that? It's clearly true or people wouldn't do it
but how so?

 

I would guess it's because you're innocent until proven guilty i.e. the
insurance company would have to take out a private prosecution & get a
ruling that you were actually in breach of your contract with them.
It's not up to the CPS to decide. But wibble.

 

struggled to ejaculate:

You snipped out the pertinent bit from Ace's post:

" If they could be said to have contributed to an accident your
insewerants company may try and wangle their way out of a claim "

It would be pretty difficult for even Weasel, Grabitt and Scarper
(Insurance to the Gentry since 19:45) to infer blame for a crash on an
exhaust can, eh? There are various items that would fail an MoT test
that certainly wouldn't invalidate your insurance - a non-standard
number plate, or even a non-functioning sidelight or numberplate
illumination. I'm sure there are many others.

Seriously, this is an old chestnut, it has been done to death here and
the Man Who Knows says it's bollocks. OK?

 

Not really!

If that logic were true it would mean you could lie to any question
that your insurance company asked you that wouldn't be likely to cause
a crash.

How many points I have would not be a factor if my bike got nicked. I
bet they still wouldn't pay out!!!

Or am I wrong. Are quesitons the insurance co ask you not too important?

 

This has nothing to do with logic and much to do with insurance.

 

I think it has quite a lot to do with shite grammar too.

 

Can I point the honourable pedant to 'pungentest' which he used when
discussing Islay malts in an another thread?

 

I'd like to point out to the Hon. Lady that mantling words to suit
oneself is a little different to a patent inability to express oneself
in one's mother tongue.

And you knew exactly wot I ment, anyway.

Pedantic witch.

 

Your right, they wouldn't be a factor if your bike got nicked. They are a
factor in you as a rider though (along with your age, experience marital
status etc.) which accounts for the majority of the 'risk' they are
insuring.

Easy solution; stick the legal can back on when youre filling out the
proposal form and that way you won't be lying to them when you say "no".
Change it later, pretend you know nothing about the requirement to disclose
material facts and hope for the best if you fall off/get knocked off

In my personal experience of motor underwriting I agree with the Man Who
Knows but it's a chance you take, albeit not a very big one (I bet you speed
on occassion even though everyone knows for certain that that's illegal
).

 

But you're a Geordie..

You say the sweetest things.

 

Works for me. I told them I have 50mm Termignonis
on the bike and it's on my policy.

 

If you don't understand the terminology it's not up to him to educate
you. That's what the whisky's for.

 

A little bit of info which is kind of correct but which completely misleads
the OP.

Next time, you may want to mention to the OP that if he fails to disclose
his modified exhaust, the insurance company may decide to avoid the entire
policy for material misrepresentation/non-disclosure. And that means not
paying a claim.

So, an illegal or modified exhaust is unlikely to invalidate automatically
an insurance policy, but the policy could be rendered useless if a
non-disclosure was material, you lied and the insurer finds out. Simple.
See.

 

Your logic is spot on. See my other post.

 

Eh? Doesn't seem misleading to me.

Yeah. S'wot I said, innit?

<Aside: bloody lawyers - always using ten words where one eill do>.

 

No, you were talking about an illegal can contributing to an accident,
which I agree is highly unlikely.

What I was saying that if you had an accident, ins co finds out that
you had an illegal can, they could avoid the policy if you failed to
disclose the can to them at the time you entered into the contract - as
long as the modifcation was material to the underwriting decision.
Nothong to do with whether or not it contributed to the accident.

 

Because I've always taken care to specifically mention to my insurers
that my exhaust is non-road-legal, if that's the case. It's never cost
me more than about a tenner extra, though some places will decline cover.

So, basically, yes, you can say exactly "Yes, I've got non-motable cans."