Clarification required

If I read it correctly the denial in the article below refers to collision damage to your vehicle if you are at fault. ie your unqualified friend wrecks the bike that you owe $10K on and there is no cash from the insurer. You still owe the finance company $10K for what is now scrap metal.

I assume the insurance company still covers liability for damage to other people or things. or not?

Quote
"Your insurance company is allowed to deny payment for loss or damage caused to the vehicle in an accident, if you or anyone you let drive your vehicle:
was unable to maintain proper control of the vehicle because you (or he and she) was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or
is convicted of one of the following Criminal Code offences (or any similar offences under any other law in Canada or the United States) relating to the use, care, or control of the vehicle:
causing death or injury by criminal negligence,
dangerous operation of a vehicle,
failure to stop at the scene of an accident,
driving a vehicle when impaired or with more than 80 mg of alcohol in the blood,
refusal to provide the police with a breath sample,
causing injury when driving a vehicle while impaired or with over 80 mg/100ml of alcohol in the blood, or
driving the vehicle while disqualified from doing so.

Except for certain accident benefits, there is no coverage for anyone, including passengers, if:
Your vehicle is driven by a person without your consent, or by someone specifically excluded from your policy by the OPCF 28A (Excluded Driver Endorsement).
The vehicle is used to carry explosives or radioactive materials.
The vehicle is used as a taxicab, bus, or sightseeing vehicle, or to carry paying passengers."

Yes if you or the person you permit to drive your vehicle is in essence committing a serious criminal act, (IE impaired) then the insurer can and often does deny coverage. If you look in the law forum you will see a case discussed where three riders were riding together on crashes killing himself and severely injuring someone the other vehicle.

They left the scene plus the police siezed GOPRO type video showing them all riding well above the limit. It is being fought now by the insurer as they are now stating they are unwilling to cover the claims. The riders have been convicted in court of various offences, (I believe one of which was leaving the scene of the accident

hedo2002 said:

Yes if you or the person you permit to drive your vehicle is in essence committing a serious criminal act, (IE impaired) then the insurer can and often does deny coverage. If you look in the law forum you will see a case discussed where three riders were riding together on crashes killing himself and severely injuring someone the other vehicle.

They left the scene plus the police siezed GOPRO type video showing them all riding well above the limit. It is being fought now by the insurer as they are now stating they are unwilling to cover the claims. The riders have been convicted in court of various offences, (I believe one of which was leaving the scene of the accident

Click to expand...

I think the victim is covered by OPCF-44, a mandatory adder to all vehicle policies but the insurer can go after the at fault vehicle owner to get their money back. OPCF-44 covers a victim from damages by uninsured or under-insured drivers.

hedo2002 said:

Yes if you or the person you permit to drive your vehicle is in essence committing a serious criminal act, (IE impaired) then the insurer can and often does deny coverage. If you look in the law forum you will see a case discussed where three riders were riding together on crashes killing himself and severely injuring someone the other vehicle.

They left the scene plus the police siezed GOPRO type video showing them all riding well above the limit. It is being fought now by the insurer as they are now stating they are unwilling to cover the claims. The riders have been convicted in court of various offences, (I believe one of which was leaving the scene of the accident

Click to expand...

There are two clauses above, though. One specifically is detailing when they will refuse to cover the damages/loss of the vehicle (implying that liability and AB is still covered), and the other is when they refuse to cover anything other than "certain accident benefits"

TwistedKestrel said:

There are two clauses above, though. One specifically is detailing when they will refuse to cover the damages/loss of the vehicle (implying that liability and AB is still covered), and the other is when they refuse to cover anything other than "certain accident benefits"

Click to expand...

If one hit another vehicle the victim would be covered by his own OPCF 44. I don't know who would cover the damages if the victim was a pedestrian or the damage was to a non-vehicle asset. Again I assume the insurer pays out and goes after the at-fault vehicle owner who may not be the rider.