I think
@figbat is actually correct. The insurance company carries the third party risk, but wouldn't pay you out for damage etc to your car. E.g. if you have taken out insurance and made a false statement to get it (not stating for business use perhaps), makes it a voidable contract. If you then plough into a bus queue, then the insurance would cover the medical treatment for injuries to others caused, but wouldn't be paying out for damage to your vehicle or indeed, yourself. It makes sense really, particularly if you were one of the ones in the bus queue.
With respect to all, that is incorrect.
It an insurer were covering 3rd party risks then you would not be driving uninsured. That would be compliance with the minimum requirement for insurance under the Road Traffic Act.
https://kangandco.co.uk/2023/09/28/...you-dont-have-business-cover/#:~:text=Driving without the necessary business,for damages and legal costs.
It's not like speeding or dr8nk driving, where 3rd party risk is still covered by the insurer even it they won't pay out for your own damage. If you take out a car insurance policy covering the cars use for one purpose but then use the car for a different purpose you are simply uninsured and the company will not cover third party risk. You'd be on your own.
There is even a stated case where someone driving along innocently spots a friend who had broken down whilemdoing a food delivery and stopped to give them a lift. Yep, they got caught and the court determined they were using the car for a business purpose, even if innocently, and were driving unjnsured.
Ditto people who try to save money by not paying to have commuting on the policy but who then drive to work. For the duration of that journey they are not insured, period (as the Americans say.)
I have put hundreds before the courts adross almost three decades for both these scenarios. Follow the Facebook or Twatter feed of any roads policing unit and you'll see these every single day.
