I can see that sort of thing happening, along with the usual issues of third party cover, but there's no need for the hyperbolic stuff (about always being considered at fault by RM or insurance companies arguing you aren't insured) as it can undermine the real arguments against.yellowbelly wrote: ↑17 Jun 2021, 08:41
I've seen the prolonged dramas that a couple of colleagues have had with RM insurance in no fault incidents
over the past couple of years, even with a minor incident such as a broken wing mirror. Managers become conspicuous
by their absence and/or don't believe you and you have to spend your own time and effort proving your innocence.
Look at it this way: if an insurance company actually argues you aren't insured (under RMs third party cover) then that would mean RM would be directly breaking the HaSaWA. Not in a technical sense (most of HaS provision has to be "reasonable" thus may be arguable), but in a very real sense (an employer cannot knowingly allow an employee to do anything at work whereby they are not insured whilst doing it).
It is a bad deal because it's third party cover (an accident may be a staffers fault, and there's nothing for vandalism or someone breaking in), and it causes wear and tear on the staffers vehicle for very little recompense. Added to that, it's created a bit of discord between some staff (some in their car go directly home leaving the van driver to head back to the office and tie up, so finish earlier and cannot be sent back out in the way the van driver can).