I believe that in certain circumstances the law accepts that you are an innocent party if you are not insured to drive a vehicle, but you are deemed to have reasonable cause to assume that it was insured. This covers employees who are given a firms vehicle or a hire car where it would be considered unreasonable to have to check the insurance certificate every time they drove it. I am not sure how this presumption that you are covered would apply in a in a courtesy car from a trader, but no hire firm or employer has ever offered me a look at the cover note before letting me loose on the road, and I doubt if anyone ever asks in those circumstances. When I was an ADI I certainly never offered proof of insurance to a pupil, and I would assume that if I had been pulled and found not to be insured it would have been soley down to me.
One of the forum's legal brains would no doubt be able to clarify this.
Edited by Robin Reliant on 04/07/2008 at 22:02
|