Drink driving/crash advice please!
Discussion
NPI said:
pork911 said:
It wouldn't be at all impossible if the terms were adequately drafted,
"Adequately drafted" is a pretty massive statement. Every denied claim would end up in a dispute, the system would go into melt-down.pork911 said:
and as I've said would improve driving standards.
Unlikely - no-one thinks they're going to crash.Can easily be adequately drafted. One example - rear end someone then you must establish full negligence at court on behalf of the car you hit (which anyway would take away the problem of own cover
).Increasing the consequences does focus the mind a little more.
NPI said:
Aretnap said:
The point of insurance is of course to protect you when you drive like a pillock.
No it's not - it's to rotect against unforeseen events, it's not a licence to be an idiot.My point has sort of been made by others, but to make it myself, the main event you're insuring against is an accident, and practically all accidents are the result of pillockishness from at least one party, whether it be in the form of driving too fast, pulling out into too small a gap, looking at the blonde on the pavement instead of the road ahead, or drunkenly swerving into a lamppost. If you were a perfect driver you would never have an accident, at least not one which was your fault, and so setting aside fire and theft you'd never have to make a claim on your own policy, apart from the odd one for fire or theft. So an insurance policy which didn't protect you when you drove badly would be a largely pointless thing to have. While I don't dispute the right of some insurers to exclude cover for drink drivers if they want to, to me it just seems like singling out one particular type of bad driving over all the others.
Durzel said:
Apocryphal but a policy I had in the past disclaimed liability in the event of a claim arising from the "use of the vehicle in criminal activity", which DD would clearly qualify.
As has been said however how they'd know the circumstances beyond what you tell them is anyone's guess.
If you want to read it like that, careless driving would also qualify as a criminal activity, and anyone who is at fault in an accident is almost certainly guilty of careless driving, whether or not they're actually convicted of it...As has been said however how they'd know the circumstances beyond what you tell them is anyone's guess.
I imagine it actually meant that they wouldn't pay out if you used your car as the getaway car in an armed robbery. Even then they might find that they still had liabilities to third parties.
pork911 said:
Can easily be adequately drafted. One example - rear end someone then you must establish full negligence at court on behalf of the car you hit (which anyway would take away the problem of own cover ).
Good luck with the drafting as even that short section doesn't make sense.).fjord said:
Im pretty certain 99.9% of insurance policies will have in the small print, that any claim submitted as a result of your own drink/drug driving etc, will not be accepted.
My current hastings, bell/admirial and my previous broker both had the same condition.
Well you'd be wrong. The vast majority have no such exclusion. And by the way, a broker cannot decide policy terms and conditions, that's the insurer's job.My current hastings, bell/admirial and my previous broker both had the same condition.
NPI said:
pork911 said:
Can easily be adequately drafted. One example - rear end someone then you must establish full negligence at court on behalf of the car you hit (which anyway would take away the problem of own cover ).
Good luck with the drafting as even that short section doesn't make sense.).Here we go again with Amish mash of badly understood insurance "fact".
Some insurers exclude paying for the damage to your car if convicted of drink driving. Some, not many and certainly not all. Admiral and their brands do exclude it.
All insurers will pay for any damage to other people or their property.
No insurer will attempt to recover this outlay.
Some insurers exclude paying for the damage to your car if convicted of drink driving. Some, not many and certainly not all. Admiral and their brands do exclude it.
All insurers will pay for any damage to other people or their property.
No insurer will attempt to recover this outlay.
LoonR1 said:
Here we go again with Amish mash of badly understood insurance "fact".
Some insurers exclude paying for the damage to your car if convicted of drink driving. Some, not many and certainly not all. Admiral and their brands do exclude it.
All insurers will pay for any damage to other people or their property.
No insurer will attempt to recover this outlay.
Agreed up to the point of recovery of outlay. Correct where the policy provides cover.Some insurers exclude paying for the damage to your car if convicted of drink driving. Some, not many and certainly not all. Admiral and their brands do exclude it.
All insurers will pay for any damage to other people or their property.
No insurer will attempt to recover this outlay.
However most policies will say if they make a payment which they are legally required to but not covered by the policy (i.e. as RTA insurer) then they are entitled to recover these costs from the insured.
And it most definately does happen.
bradjsmith88 said:
Agreed up to the point of recovery of outlay. Correct where the policy provides cover.
However most policies will say if they make a payment which they are legally required to but not covered by the policy (i.e. as RTA insurer) then they are entitled to recover these costs from the insured.
And it most definately does happen.
Does it? Perhaps you could enlighten us with how and the contract terms laid down?However most policies will say if they make a payment which they are legally required to but not covered by the policy (i.e. as RTA insurer) then they are entitled to recover these costs from the insured.
And it most definately does happen.
Most policies may have that stipulation but how do they exclude it in the first place?
hora said:
Snowboy said:
2 kept their jobs, but with a serious b
king and a public conpany wide apology.
OUCH.king and a public conpany wide apology.I also guess its the circumstances? Caught morning after etc etc as opposed to blind drunk/crashed into someone causing injury.
One was a youth caught driving home from a pub.
Both apologies read as cautionary tales to others.
In both cases nobody was hurt.
I don't know much about the other one. It was all a bit hushed up.
LoonR1 said:
Here we go again with Amish mash of badly understood insurance "fact".
Some insurers exclude paying for the damage to your car if convicted of drink driving. Some, not many and certainly not all. Admiral and their brands do exclude it.
All insurers will pay for any damage to other people or their property.
No insurer will attempt to recover this outlay.
Admiral were/are pursuing this guy / his son for third party damage caused by his son who is a named driver who had an accident whilst drunk.Some insurers exclude paying for the damage to your car if convicted of drink driving. Some, not many and certainly not all. Admiral and their brands do exclude it.
All insurers will pay for any damage to other people or their property.
No insurer will attempt to recover this outlay.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
Interestingly he complained to the Ombudsman re the increase in his premium for having a fault claim and for losing his no claims bonus as Admiral will (In theory) recover all of their outlay from the named driver (son).
The Ombudsman ruled thus.
""As Admiral was provided with the appropriate indemnity from the named driver, it has the right of recovery against him but its success or otherwise should not affect the policyholder, Mr X (me) or indeed his NCD, as costs incurred by Admiral were not costs incurred under the policy, but cost incurred under its liability as detailed in the Road Traffic Act."
The poster noted that Admiral have to remove reference to the claim on the relevant databases, reinstate no claims bonus and pay compensation to reflect increased premiums due to the claim.
The OP had not been back for some time and at the time of his last post I don't think his son had parted with any money. Whether Admiral are still pursuing the money or accepted a lower settlement or have written the money off I don't know.
dacouch said:
Admiral were/are pursuing this guy / his son for third party damage caused by his son who is a named driver.
Is give generous odds that this is a fronted policy and that's why they're looking to recover the TP outlay rather than a standard midis opera do whenever there is a drink related claim on a policy. Of course we'll never know. I don't see any other such issues being raised regularly.
fjord said:
Im pretty certain 99.9% of insurance policies will have in the small print, that any claim submitted as a result of your own drink/drug driving etc, will not be accepted.
My current hastings, bell/admirial and my previous broker both had the same condition.
You're pretty wrong then. My current hastings, bell/admirial and my previous broker both had the same condition.
LoonR1 said:
Is give generous odds that this is a fronted policy and that's why they're looking to recover the TP outlay rather than a standard midis opera do whenever there is a drink related claim on a policy.
Of course we'll never know. I don't see any other such issues being raised regularly.
Did you note there were actually two posters on that thread who claim to be in the same boat?Of course we'll never know. I don't see any other such issues being raised regularly.
There are also two on this thread who claim to be in the same boat.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t6...
Here is a case that has gone to the Ombudsman (The complaint was because of the way Admiral handled the claim)
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff