Insurance and liability for automated vehicle trials and pilots

Begin with the vehicle's actual road use

A company insures a prototype vehicle for testing with a safety driver. Six months later it proposes a no-driver passenger pilot on the same route. The policy still names the vehicle, but the use has changed. Passengers, remote support, automated mode, issued permissions and contractual roles may now be different. The old certificate cannot answer whether the new activity is covered simply because the registration mark has not changed.

The June 2026 automated vehicle trialling code says public-road trials need appropriate insurance and points to the ordinary motor-insurance requirements in Road Traffic Act 1988 section 143. Its supervised-trial model includes a safety driver. The DfT no-driver pilot applicant guidance asks for a policy certificate or other document specifying the pilot use and duration, with at least third-party liability and the insurer liability relevant under section 2 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. An operator must reconcile these sources with its actual policy, vehicle, permissions and insurer agreement.

This guide owns the insurance evidence and liability boundary before and after a deployment. It does not say which insurer must pay a named claim, interpret policy exclusions for a particular customer or replace a broker and transport lawyer. A pilot permission and insurance policy answer different questions. A Vehicle Special Order can address vehicle-rule exemptions; it is not an insurance endorsement. An automated passenger service permit can address passenger operation; it is not proof that every passenger and liability exposure is insured.

The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 provides a specific first-instance insurer-liability route for qualifying accidents involving a listed automated vehicle when driving itself on a road or other public place in Great Britain. Its details matter. The full Automated Vehicles Act 2024 is being implemented in stages. Do not treat future authorisation roles as if they already replace current pilot insurance analysis. Specialist counsel should check the commencement position, listing, policy and facts for each project.

Separate compulsory motor cover from the 2018 Act route

Compulsory motor insurance addresses the lawful use of vehicles on roads and other public places. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is one important Great Britain source, with exceptions and detailed policy provisions elsewhere in the Act. The trialling code also identifies a different Northern Ireland provision. A team planning operations across territories must obtain advice on the precise motor-insurance regime. A generic certificate screenshot does not identify the insured activities, drivers, users or exclusions that matter to a prototype.

The 2018 Act introduces a separate liability mechanism. Section 1 concerns the Secretary of State's list of automated vehicles. Section 2 concerns insurer or exempt-owner liability for damage caused by an accident when a listed automated vehicle is driving itself on a road or other public place in Great Britain. The source should be read with its definitions, conditions and other sections. The existence of the Act does not mean every vehicle with driver-assistance software, every closed-track test or every event involving an automated vehicle falls under section 2.

The Act's explanatory notes describe first-instance insurer liability and the related treatment of the person in charge. They also explain contributory negligence, software alterations, missed safety-critical updates and recovery rights. The notes aid understanding but do not displace the enacted text. A claims decision requires evidence about the vehicle's listing, whether it was driving itself, where the accident occurred, causation, damage and the insured status.

Record those threshold questions before trying to allocate fault. Was the vehicle on the Secretary of State's list at the event date? Was the relevant automated mode engaged? Was the road or place within the Act's scope? Did an accident cause damage as defined? Was the vehicle insured or within a relevant exemption? What did the policy cover? A team that answers yes to only one question has not established the legal outcome.

Do not describe section 2 as automatic payment for every injury. There may be disputes about statutory conditions, evidence, causation, contributory negligence, the insured person's conduct and policy issues. Section 5 can give an insurer or owner rights against another responsible person after paying. A manufacturer or software supplier may therefore be involved in later recovery, but the legal route and facts determine that. The public-facing article should explain the questions, not predict a claim result.

Check the operating model with the broker and insurer

Prepare a one-page use statement before asking for a quote or amendment. Name the vehicle, legal operator, owner, keeper, test sponsor, passenger permit holder and other relevant entities. Describe whether the activity is closed track, supervised public-road trial, no-driver pilot, passenger service or freight. State where it will run, hours, vehicle speed, passenger numbers, remote assistance model, safety-driver role and expected changes during the policy period.

Give the insurer the current technical and permission picture. Identify listing status, Vehicle Special Order conditions, approval or exemption, APS permit where relevant, safety case, maintenance arrangements, incident process and software release control. Disclose planned operating-domain limits, known defects or unresolved conditions as the insurer requests. Do not present a future permit application as a granted permission. Ask for written confirmation of what use is insured and from what date.

Check the certificate, schedule and endorsements together. A certificate may show compulsory cover while the policy schedule contains use restrictions, named parties, territorial limits, excesses and conditions. A fleet policy might require a declaration of each vehicle or change. A supervised-trial policy might refer to a safety driver. A no-driver service cannot assume that wording still fits. The operator should have counsel or a broker read the whole contract with the insurer rather than interpret a marketing summary.

Ask about passenger and non-motor exposures without confusing them with the compulsory minimum. Remote assistance, passenger support, product liability, cyber events, employers' liability, professional services, goods in transit and business interruption may be relevant to an operator or its suppliers. Whether a specific policy is needed depends on the facts and legal obligations. An AV pilot can involve several policies. The coverage map should show which entity buys each policy, what it covers, its start and expiry and the handoff after a claim.

The DfT pilot guidance says the operator should have sufficient insurance for liabilities arising from the vehicle and its operations. Its assessment table asks for a certificate or other policy document specifying the use case and duration. That is a concrete evidence request. A declaration that insurance is in place, with no policy scope or duration, is weaker. The applicant should preserve the document supplied to the authority and any subsequent endorsement so its operating team knows which version applies.

Listing and mode evidence can decide the path

For a no-driver pilot, vehicle listing under the 2018 Act is a distinct step from approval, registration and a Vehicle Special Order. The DfT pilot guidance says a vehicle can be registered as capable of self-driving only after listing. It also describes the assessment path for a pilot. A vehicle's commercial description as self-driving is not proof of listing. The insurance file should include the listing evidence and date for the physical vehicle or relevant type.

Mode evidence matters after an accident. A vehicle may be capable of automated driving but under human control at the relevant moment. Preserve the timestamp, mode transitions, driver interventions, software version, map and event data. The answer can affect which statutory and policy questions arise. A dashboard status captured hours later is not a reliable substitute. The incident plan should identify how data is preserved, who can access it and how personal data is protected.

Human roles also matter. In a supervised trial, the safety driver must be ready, able and willing to resume control under the trialling code. In a no-driver pilot, the human-monitoring arrangement is different. A remote adviser or support worker may not be legally a driver merely because the insurer's policy uses an old term. Ask the insurer and lawyer to review the role descriptions, especially when the project moves from one route to another. The policy and permission should describe the same real operation.

When a supplier updates automated-driving software, update the insurance file as required. Section 4 of the 2018 Act addresses limited circumstances involving unauthorised software alterations or failure to apply safety-critical updates. It does not justify saying that any missed update automatically voids all claims. The statutory conditions and policy language need careful analysis. Keep release approval, deployment history, notification and rollback evidence so the facts can be established after an event.

Treat changes as coverage questions before dispatch

A small operational change may be material to an insurer. Adding passengers, a new area, night operation, a new vehicle, different remote support or a software version that changes automated behavior can alter the risk description. Create a change gate that asks whether the Vehicle Special Order, passenger permit, safety case and policy all still match. The gate should name the insurer or broker contact and require written evidence of any change in cover. An internal engineering approval does not amend the policy.

For a fleet, keep a vehicle-level coverage record. It should show registration, VIN, listing status, declared use, policy number, insurer, effective dates, relevant endorsements and linked permissions. A central policy may cover many vehicles, but that does not remove the need to know whether a substitute vehicle was added before it drove. Check the actual declaration mechanism. Make dispatch depend on current cover evidence where the operational system allows it.

Temporary withdrawal deserves a similar check. If a vehicle is held after a defect, the operator may still need cover while it is recovered, repaired or tested. A maintenance journey and passenger journey can be different uses. A technician's road test after repair may need a driver and insurance arrangement. Map these phases before the first failure, not during a roadside recovery.

An insurance renewal can intersect with a permit or order timeline. The team should not rely on a policy that expires during a trial, even if the passenger permit lasts longer. Record renewal owner and evidence of continuity. Where a policy changes insurer or wording, compare not just premium but the declared pilot use, mode, vehicle list, exclusions, excess and claims process. Escalate a gap before the vehicle is available to passengers.

Plan the claim and evidence handoff

After an incident, first protect people, comply with road-law duties and make the vehicle safe. Then notify the insurer according to the policy and preserve the evidence needed for the claim. The regulator and insurer may have different reportable-event definitions and clocks. A regulatory notice does not necessarily satisfy policy notice, and insurer notice does not satisfy a Vehicle Special Order or APS condition. Use one event identifier with separate obligation rows.

Capture who knew what and when, location, people involved, vehicle and mode, software and hardware baseline, route conditions, collision or failure sequence, passenger or third-party accounts, emergency response and immediate controls. Keep initial observations separate from later causal analysis. A preliminary report should not declare that the automated system caused an accident if the evidence is incomplete. At the same time, waiting for a final root cause may breach a policy notice condition.

Preserve the original logs and chain of custody. Camera, location and passenger records can contain personal data. Insurers and investigators may need access, but sharing should have a lawful basis and limited scope. Assign a privacy specialist to the evidence plan. An incident may also require a hold on a vehicle or fleet until a defect has been assessed. The claim team and safety team should coordinate so one does not release the vehicle while the other still needs its condition preserved.

Ask how claims between entities are handled. A pilot operator, vehicle manufacturer, automated-driving supplier and passenger-service permit holder may each hold information or insurance. Contractual indemnities can affect later allocation, but they do not replace statutory rights of an injured person or establish whether a policy responds. Legal counsel should compare contracts and coverage rather than assuming a supplier will pay because it wrote the software.

The 2018 Act's insurer-first approach can simplify the initial route for a qualifying injured party, while allowing later recovery questions. That summary is not a promise of outcome. The operator needs a practical way to provide listing, mode and incident evidence promptly. An insurer should not be forced to reconstruct whether a vehicle was self-driving from conflicting marketing copy and incomplete telemetry.

A coverage and liability review table

Use this table as an agenda with a broker, insurer and lawyer. It is not a policy interpretation or statutory checklist for every vehicle.

Record the source of each answer. A verbal assurance from an internal project meeting is not an insurer endorsement. If cover is conditional, name the condition and person who checks it before use. If the insurer cannot confirm the proposed no-driver model, hold deployment while specialist advice and underwriting are resolved.

Keep future Act roles in view without claiming they govern the pilot

The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 creates a future full authorisation framework with roles such as the authorised self-driving entity and, where relevant, a no-user-in-charge operator. Its implementation timetable and secondary rules are developing. Those roles may matter to later insurance and liability arrangements. For a current 2026 pilot, use the permissions and 2018 Act listing that actually apply, together with ordinary motor law and issued conditions. A route that looks similar to a future authorised service is not automatically in that regime.

Give one person responsibility for regulatory rechecks. When commencement or insurance-related rules change, revisit policy wording, declared entities, claims contacts and evidence retention. Do the same when the vehicle moves from a pilot to a later authorisation. The insurer should receive an accurate description of the new legal and operational model. A reused policy number is not proof that the new model is insured.

The immediate next step is a meeting with the broker, insurer, transport lawyer and operating lead using one real vehicle. Confirm the use, listing and permissions, check the whole policy and record changes needed before the first public-road trip. Repeat when the human role, route, vehicle or service changes.

Where Complys could support the evidence

An operator may need to hold policy documents, vehicle lists, renewal dates, permissions, change approvals and incident tasks. Complys can be assessed for those administrative records in a product demonstration. This page does not claim that Complys sells insurance, determines statutory liability, interprets a policy, notifies an insurer automatically or confirms that a vehicle is covered. The product owner must verify any exact feature before publication.

In a demonstration, provide a vehicle with a supervised-trial policy and a proposed no-driver passenger use. Ask whether the product can show the policy version, declared use, missing endorsement, hold owner and evidence of insurer confirmation. Ask how a later accident record links to the vehicle's listing and software version without storing all sensitive telemetry in the same system. The AV compliance software overview covers the broader procurement case. The AV checker is a nonbinding regime pointer, not a coverage or claims decision tool.

The operational outcome is a written coverage decision for the actual vehicle and activity, supported by current documents and an insurer response. A qualified specialist should review statutory liability and policy terms. The operator can then make a defensible launch or hold decision rather than discovering a mismatch after a claim.