Drink driving/crash advice please!

[ClaphamGT3]

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. Should they pay out of you leave your keys in the ignition and the car is stolen?

If you contract with a provider to insure that risk then yes.

[nipsips]

As put above the reason some insurers wont pay out if you are caught drink driving is because it is a clause in that particular policy. Some insurers will pay out as normal (I know mine does).

The point of them trying to recover the cost of the third party claim back from the insured is because you have broken the terms of that policy.

Say for example you have a car and your brother says can I use your car to run to the shop. He has no license because of disco but you know that he can drive but its only a short journey. He stuffs it on the way to the shop. Your insurer will come after you as the policy holder for allowing someone to drive the vehicle other than in the terms and conditions of the policy (i.e. no license etc). If the car is stolen and being driven by a thief then the RTA agreement kicks in and pays out for third party risks (if the thief is apprehended or named). The insurer can look to claim it back from the thief (however this very rarely works and normally costs more than you'd recover).

The RTA agreement basically puts the MID insurer of the vehicle as liable for any third party risks at any time. Therefore by allowing someone to drive your car without a license or cover you have breached the policy terms and conditions and therefore your insurer can look to recover from you.

As stated above some insurers have the clause in the policy which states they will repudiate AD cover if you're proven to be drink driving but supply TP cover under the RTA agreement. I cant speak for them as we don't have this clause (I wish we did!) however I would have thought if its a small amount of TP damage the cost of recovering it back from you unless you play nice will out-way the cost of sucking it up and forgetting about it. The AD cover though will be non existent.

In terms of the OP's situation then it totally depends on insurer as to what will happen next.

[NPI]

ClaphamGT3 said:

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. Should they pay out of you leave your keys in the ignition and the car is stolen?

If you contract with a provider to insure that risk then yes.

Which is pretty unlikely.

There will also be a "catch-all" term about taking reasonable precautions etc etc.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

NPI said:

slippery said:

NPI said:

Admiral, for one, won't.

Really? Times have changed.....

It's been the case with them for many years.

AFAIK, Admiral are the only insurer to have this restriction for everyone. Some others apply it if you apply for insurance and you've had a drink drive offence in the past.

What worries me about that restriction is that it might not be you driving. One of your named drivers might pop round to borrow your car one morning, and you'd be completely unaware that they had a skin full the night before. But I'm not with Admiral anyway and there is no such restriction on my policy.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

NPI said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

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. Should they pay out of you leave your keys in the ignition and the car is stolen?

If you contract with a provider to insure that risk then yes.

Which is pretty unlikely.

There will also be a "catch-all" term about taking reasonable precautions etc etc.

Driving too close to the car in front is failing to take all reasonable precautions, but I'd still expect to get paid out it I hit them up the rear.

If insurers exclude theft by leaving the keys in the ignition, they will specifically specify so in the policy.

[Siscar]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If insurers exclude theft by leaving the keys in the ignition, they will specifically specify so in the policy.

Will they? (Genuine question). I'd have hoped it would somehow split out genuine mistake from gross stupidity although I'm not sure how.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Siscar said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If insurers exclude theft by leaving the keys in the ignition, they will specifically specify so in the policy.

Will they? (Genuine question). I'd have hoped it would somehow split out genuine mistake from gross stupidity although I'm not sure how.

Many insurers exclude theft if keys left in or on an unattended vehicle.

[Chrisgr31]

Steve H said:

I don't want my premiums to go up as a result of payouts to drunks but I also don't want them to be covering the cost of doting parents who were too busy looking at their offspring on the back seat to concentrate on driving or spurious whiplash claims that very little is being done about; drunk driving is just the easy to see tip of a very large and apparently easy to ignore iceberg.

Most accidents are caused by some kind of avoidable poor/lazy/distracted/aggressive/drunk driving, I'm uncomfortable with the particular emphasis on drunk drivers not because I think it's OK to do but because for the insurance companies I think it's a cost cutting move that is easy to get away with and for the authorities it's an easily quantifiable form of behaviour to demonise - a lot like they are now doing with speeding. How long will it be until they refuse to pay out if you were over that limit? …………..

I understand where you are coming from, however we all drive like idiots on occasions as if we didn't there wouldn't be so many accidents.

The problem with demonising drink driving is that it is now moving on to speeding. In reality of course the dangers of drink driving are far greater than the dangers of speeding. After ll you are just as likely to crash a cheap runabout if driving drunk as you are to crash a new rep mobile. However if speeding you are probably more likely to crash a runabout than a rep mobile purely because it wont have as good brakes, cornering ability etc.

Of course if insurers are cutting cover for driving when drunk how soon until they start cutting cover if speeding, careless driving etc. The issue then becomes that in order for there to be an accident someone must of driven carelessly.

[NPI]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driving too close to the car in front is failing to take all reasonable precautions, but I'd still expect to get paid out it I hit them up the rear.

Yes, in practice it would be extremely difficult to operate any kind of "unwise driving" exclusion.

[pork911]

NPI said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driving too close to the car in front is failing to take all reasonable precautions, but I'd still expect to get paid out it I hit them up the rear.

Yes, in practice it would be extremely difficult to operate any kind of "unwise driving" exclusion.

Not at all for your own losses. And doing so might improve driving standards.

[pork911]

Still wondering what her job was?

[NPI]

pork911 said:

Not at all for your own losses.

Unless the driver admitted they'd done something daft, then in the absence of a conviction for dangerous driving, or racing on the public highway etc, it would be impossible.

Of course an insurance company could refuse a claim and make the policyholder fight for it, but the Ins Co would soon get into trouble if they did that regularly.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

pork911 said:

NPI said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driving too close to the car in front is failing to take all reasonable precautions, but I'd still expect to get paid out it I hit them up the rear.

Yes, in practice it would be extremely difficult to operate any kind of "unwise driving" exclusion.

Not at all for your own losses. And doing so might improve driving standards.

They could introduce this new type of cover, called third party fire and theft, where your own damage in an accident wasn't covered at all!!!

[Durzel]

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.

[imagineifyeswill]

Admiral shouldnt be classed as an insurance company, they take your money and give you a certificate but in the event off a claim invoke every clause and try every trick in the book to avoid paying out or even advancing the claim in a non fault incident.

[TPS]

Daggers89 said:

I've suggested that the insurance will probably not pay out (the car is thought to be a write-off) and she'll probably get a driving ban but for how long etc etc? Is there any way to escape the ban with a fine or is she just going to have to suck it up and take whatever's thrown at her?

There is no way you can avoid a ban.

Drink driving carries a minimum 12 month ban.For double the limit she will probably get more plus a fine and criminal record.

The insurance company may well not pay out for the car,she needs to ask them.

Double the limit puts it at 17 to 22 month ban plus band c fine.

Edited by TPS on Monday 5th May 20:02

[pork911]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They could introduce this new type of cover, called third party fire and theft, where your own damage in an accident wasn't covered at all!!!

I was partly alluding to that but even on fully comp, I see no reason why it couldn't be introduced.

Having driven in many countries where if I was involved in any crash, medical attention would be a faint wish and I would likely have to pay for everyone's damage and injuries along with lots of bribes regardless of whose fault it really was, my driving improved immeasurably

[pork911]

NPI said:

pork911 said:

Not at all for your own losses.

Unless the driver admitted they'd done something daft, then in the absence of a conviction for dangerous driving, or racing on the public highway etc, it would be impossible.

Of course an insurance company could refuse a claim and make the policyholder fight for it, but the Ins Co would soon get into trouble if they did that regularly.

It wouldn't be at all impossible if the terms were adequately drafted, and as I've said would improve driving standards.

It seems having (real) skin in the game isn't enough so maybe putting the drivers own money in might

[NPI]

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.

[fjord]

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.