On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:33:48 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
That is not how I read that at all. In fact it is almost the exact opposite.
That is saying that nothing in the previous section makes any clause requiring repayment to be invalid.
It doesn't say that any such requirement is void unless there is a clause specifying it.
Generally speaking, if you do not comply with the conditions of your policy, then you are likely to be required to pay back anything the insurer pays out.
Nobody is suggesting it is the default (well Mr X seems to be, but nobody else).
As you say, many accidents are caused by negligence. And the insured driver may end up being prosecuted for his driving. Neither of those mean that the insured will be expected to repay the insurer.
But breaching the conditions of insurance will. This would include such things as driving without a license at all, or driving a vehicle you are not licensed to drive, or driving while medically unfit.
-- Alex Heney, Global Villager Some minds should be cultivated, others plowed under... To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
