Re: Reason15 to despise the police


"Mike Ross" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f4u583pjs7g784dvd542ps2vikddo459tt@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:10:40 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:58:36 -0400, Mike Ross <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I daresay - but has it been tested in court? That's all that counts -
and I don't think I'm indulging in a wild flight of fancy in saying
that a court might well agree with my interpretation - it's NOT clear
from the policy wording you describe exactly what the distinction
between 'drive' and 'use' is.

It is plenty clear enough that it is hard to see how a court could
have any difficulty, particularly when the insurance policy and
certificate make a clear distinction.

Well another poster - PeteM - has researched this. See his post. The
language used on his insurance certificate refers to being covered to
'drive' a car not owned by him, but the full policy document makes it
clear that the coverage is the full 3rd party cover required by the
RTA - which goes further than just 'driving', sensu stricto,
obviously. So I'm not clear what distinction you're talking about.


I think you will find that it is only the legally required cover *while* he
is driving the car.

This is entirely in accord with my interpretation, that the use of the
'drive' is a simple plain-english short form, which encompasses
driving, stopping, getting out, parking, filling up with petrol,
nipping into the shop to buy a paper, and all the other things the
average person would associate with 'driving'.


Nope. Driving covers only the time from when you step into the driver's
seat, to the time you step out, including those periods that the vehicle is
stationary. If driving included the time you were in a shop, then my other
half would have been prosecuted many times over for driving without a
licence, despite never having sat in the driver's seat of a car.

Your argument is clearly fatuous.

Most contracts these days contain a section defining important terms.
If 'driving' and 'using' are such important terms, with such a subtle
distinction, they should be defined somewhere in the policy document.
Anyone got any examples?


Driving is defined in law and has been well interpreted by the courts, so it
requuires no further interpretation.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reason15 to despise the police
    ... It is plenty clear enough that it is hard to see how a court could ... certificate make a clear distinction. ... This is entirely in accord with my interpretation, ... they should be defined somewhere in the policy document. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Reason15 to despise the police
    ... certificate make a clear distinction. ... 'drive' a car not owned by him, but the full policy document makes it ... This is entirely in accord with my interpretation, ... they should be defined somewhere in the policy document. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Texas Polygamists--sf in real life?
    ... which hasn't been to the Supreme Court yet. ... That would be a clearly absurd interpretation of the law, ... meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: TV licence
    ... It is called interpretation. ... Try and stay with this one Act. ... If that is right then it is always open for a case to come to Court ... installation to remain. ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: (Blinder 2) More on the anti-globalization trend.
    ... ball in YOUR court, and its still there, in your court. ... You would give your interpretation of what he meant (dodged twice; ... "free trade" agreement were genually free it would be very concise. ... understand "freedom" differently. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
Loading