Insurers might deny liability if an 'Insured Party' has broken a road rule in the negligent action of seriously injuring a third party

Upon an accident, the 'Insurer' under a public liability insurance policy will invariably seek to deny liability if the negligent 'Insured Party', hereinafter a Claimer, breached any term or condition of the policy. Is breaking a road rule, breaching a term or condition of the policy?

Clause 8 of Exclusions Applicable to Section 2 in the Sportscover's 'General Liability Insurance Policy Wording' is the type of clause that an insurer might rely on to deny liability.

As set out in Chapter 23, a critical issue in this analysis of Bunch Riding is to learn if an 'Insurer' is able to rely upon an exclusion clause to deny liability if an insured cyclist has breached a road rule during the course of its negligence.

If that is not clear cut, then establishing New Road Rules For Bunch Riders which also set out what constitutes Dangerous Cycling and what constitutes Reckless Cycling has merit, so that both the 'Insured Party' and the 'Insurer' have a much better idea as to whether the 'Insured Party' can subrogate their negligent liability to their 'Insurer'.

Explicit New Road Rules For Bunch Riders would need to set out quantifiable measurements that 'Insurers' can rely upon to deny liability (based on the evidenced garnered following a serious bicycle accident) because in order to reduce Avoidable Trauma Bicycle Accidents the 'stick' (of potentially forfeiting insurance) would be far more effective than the 'carrot' (of being a law abiding road cyclist).