Drink driving/crash advice please!
Discussion
dacouch said:
Did you note there were actually two posters on that thread who claim to be in the same boat?
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...
Fair enough. I'm not convinced they actually do attempt to recover though. I reserve all rights on all of the claims delay with as RTA but rarely attempt to recover for commercial reasons. 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...
LoonR1 said:
Fair enough. I'm not convinced they actually do attempt to recover though. I reserve all rights on all of the claims delay with as RTA but rarely attempt to recover for commercial reasons.
Admiral are a law unto themselves.The posters don't actually report that Admiral are taking enforcing action just that they're requested to sign the letter of indemnity and are given an idea of costs. It could be Admiral go through the motions and then sit on them for some reason perhaps to await for the right moment to avoid gaining bad publicity or perhaps until the people actually have some money to go after. It may well be they don't ever pursue it but they have six years to start proceedings.
They may have started enforcing the debts and the people not posted back for advice although you would expect them to seek advice
dacouch said:
Admiral are a law unto themselves.
The posters don't actually report that Admiral are taking enforcing action just that they're requested to sign the letter of indemnity and are given an idea of costs. It could be Admiral go through the motions and then sit on them for some reason perhaps to await for the right moment to avoid gaining bad publicity or perhaps until the people actually have some money to go after. It may well be they don't ever pursue it but they have six years to start proceedings.
They may have started enforcing the debts and the people not posted back for advice although you would expect them to seek advice
Consent and Indemnity forms are fairly standard. Maybe Admiral are being a bit harder in getting them signed as they have more exclusions in their policies. I still don't see that they'll pursue unless extreme circumstances. I doubt they'll pursue it, more likely the Consumer Insurance Act will be the tested when an insurer breaks ranks and goes for it The posters don't actually report that Admiral are taking enforcing action just that they're requested to sign the letter of indemnity and are given an idea of costs. It could be Admiral go through the motions and then sit on them for some reason perhaps to await for the right moment to avoid gaining bad publicity or perhaps until the people actually have some money to go after. It may well be they don't ever pursue it but they have six years to start proceedings.
They may have started enforcing the debts and the people not posted back for advice although you would expect them to seek advice
dacouch said:
LoonR1 said:
Fair enough. I'm not convinced they actually do attempt to recover though. I reserve all rights on all of the claims delay with as RTA but rarely attempt to recover for commercial reasons.
Admiral are a law unto themselves.The posters don't actually report that Admiral are taking enforcing action just that they're requested to sign the letter of indemnity and are given an idea of costs. It could be Admiral go through the motions and then sit on them for some reason perhaps to await for the right moment to avoid gaining bad publicity or perhaps until the people actually have some money to go after. It may well be they don't ever pursue it but they have six years to start proceedings.
They may have started enforcing the debts and the people not posted back for advice although you would expect them to seek advice
I'm pretty sure insurers cannot refuse to pay out for damage to third parties providing you are actually insured. This is the whole point of insurance, third party cover is the bare minimum. However, they may choose to recover the money from you if you are drunk when you have the crash that causes the damage to the third party and property. Of course they won't pay to fix your car (which they are not obliged to do).
Anyone who spouts the usual "your insurance is void if you are drunk / on drugs / speeding" is clueless. Your insurance always covers you for damage to third parties and property. But as said, if you have an accident which ends up hurting other people or breaking someone else's property while you are drunk, they will of course seek to recover the money from you once they have paid out.
Anyone who spouts the usual "your insurance is void if you are drunk / on drugs / speeding" is clueless. Your insurance always covers you for damage to third parties and property. But as said, if you have an accident which ends up hurting other people or breaking someone else's property while you are drunk, they will of course seek to recover the money from you once they have paid out.
LoonR1 said:
Does it? Perhaps you could enlighten us with how and the contract terms laid down?
Most policies may have that stipulation but how do they exclude it in the first place?
To clarify, I agree most policies do not refuse cover for drink driving. Those that do, I fail to see how they effectively enforce this.Most policies may have that stipulation but how do they exclude it in the first place?
However if they did sucesfully exclude it then they would look to claim costs back that they have had to pay.
i.e.:
Payments made under compulsory insurance regulations and rights of recovery
(11) If the law in any country in which this policy operates requires us to settle a claim which, if this law
had not existed, we would not be obliged to pay, we shall be entitled to recover such payments from
the relevant person insured or the person who incurred the liability.
EDIT: Reading further on also accept your points about 'commercial' decisions not to pursue - however there are many many cases where this does not come into consideration. I think the bigger difficulty is often the persons involved often do not have the funds to pay back the insuer, rather than the insurers determination to retrieve what they have paid.
Edited by bradjsmith88 on Wednesday 7th May 12:30
Loon,
I never said that the majority exclude. Read my original reply I said I agreed with you, up to the point of recovering outlay.
I dont think its right to say that insurers are unlikely to pursue recovery of outlay. I know it doesnt happen on every case, and arguably not as much as would be morally correct however there is the possibility of it happening, and this is included in the majority of insurer's wording.
I wouldnt want to give hope to anyone that they are simply going to walk away from paying anything if their insurer refuses their claim.
I haven't given a 'view' on anything. I've said that an insurer that does reject a claim for drink driving, would most likely be able to pursue their policyholder for any TP claims costs they are obligated to make payment for as RTA/A75 insurer.
I never said that the majority exclude. Read my original reply I said I agreed with you, up to the point of recovering outlay.
I dont think its right to say that insurers are unlikely to pursue recovery of outlay. I know it doesnt happen on every case, and arguably not as much as would be morally correct however there is the possibility of it happening, and this is included in the majority of insurer's wording.
I wouldnt want to give hope to anyone that they are simply going to walk away from paying anything if their insurer refuses their claim.
I haven't given a 'view' on anything. I've said that an insurer that does reject a claim for drink driving, would most likely be able to pursue their policyholder for any TP claims costs they are obligated to make payment for as RTA/A75 insurer.
bradjsmith88 said:
Loon,
I never said that the majority exclude. Read my original reply I said I agreed with you, up to the point of recovering outlay.
I dont think its right to say that insurers are unlikely to pursue recovery of outlay. I know it doesnt happen on every case, and arguably not as much as would be morally correct however there is the possibility of it happening, and this is included in the majority of insurer's wording.
I wouldnt want to give hope to anyone that they are simply going to walk away from paying anything if their insurer refuses their claim.
I haven't given a 'view' on anything. I've said that an insurer that does reject a claim for drink driving, would most likely be able to pursue their policyholder for any TP claims costs they are obligated to make payment for as RTA/A75 insurer.
I agree on this - I have several cases at the minute where payments are being made and chased back with the insured to reclaim the outlay. If you pay out £10,000 and its only going to cost £2,000 to recover it why would you not attempt.I never said that the majority exclude. Read my original reply I said I agreed with you, up to the point of recovering outlay.
I dont think its right to say that insurers are unlikely to pursue recovery of outlay. I know it doesnt happen on every case, and arguably not as much as would be morally correct however there is the possibility of it happening, and this is included in the majority of insurer's wording.
I wouldnt want to give hope to anyone that they are simply going to walk away from paying anything if their insurer refuses their claim.
I haven't given a 'view' on anything. I've said that an insurer that does reject a claim for drink driving, would most likely be able to pursue their policyholder for any TP claims costs they are obligated to make payment for as RTA/A75 insurer.
However each case needs to be taken by its own merits and the likelyhood of winning is taken into account. I'm just a lowly claims handler however I have reference points I use to query whether such action is viable.
Im pretty sure the insurer you work for has the same views as the one I do has!
nipsips said:
I agree on this - I have several cases at the minute where payments are being made and chased back with the insured to reclaim the outlay. If you pay out £10,000 and its only going to cost £2,000 to recover it why would you not attempt.
However each case needs to be taken by its own merits and the likelyhood of winning is taken into account. I'm just a lowly claims handler however I have reference points I use to query whether such action is viable.
Im pretty sure the insurer you work for has the same views as the one I do has!
Yet to see one recover. I'm not a lowly claims handler, I make the high level strategy decisions and we don't chase. We reserve rights, but have not pursued yet. However each case needs to be taken by its own merits and the likelyhood of winning is taken into account. I'm just a lowly claims handler however I have reference points I use to query whether such action is viable.
Im pretty sure the insurer you work for has the same views as the one I do has!
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 9th May 06:53
LoonR1 said:
Yet to see one recover. I'm not a lowly claims handler, I make the high level strategy decisions and we don't chase. We reserve rights, but have not pursued yet.
That's fair enough - all I'm stating is the particular company I work for do. Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 9th May 06:53
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff