Originally Posted by
42psi
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.
I don't think this is fully true even for UK Auto Insurance. Specific issues which I believe can invalidate ones insurance include selling the car to another person (I don't believe the insurer then has any liability for the actions of this third party) or substantial failure to pay the policy premiums.
As a note, various people claim one or both of the above to have been true in the GH case.
The link to the Canadian judgment is interesting, but not that relevant as insurance practice is quite varied by jurisdiction. Also, it referred only to hull insurance, and I would have thought walking away from this part of the claim is the aspect least likely to be regulated as it only involves the insurer and the operator - who is clearly in a position to know about any lack of compliance with the conditions of insurance.
People's main concern should be with the liability side of their insurance as this is the one likely to wipe out your estate and impact your family.