So, you are drunk and have a crash.

[Somnophore]

With the what happens if you're drunk and you're hit in the rear question, being drunk doesn't have a bearing on liability so the person who hit you would still be at fault and their insurance would have to pay out, the only issues would be if the at fault part found out you were drunk they might argue you brakes for no reason causing the accident, and the fact you were drunk wouldn't help your version of events.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Cost Captain said:

If I drive blind folded or with my hands tied behind my back am I insured?

Yes

[Noger]

DavidHM said:

Noger said:

STW2010 said:

Here is Admiral's specific wording-

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%200610%20P...

Page 21

All mouth, no trousers (well, trousers round ankles). ICOBS 8.1.2(3) would prevent them refusing the claim unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach or condition. OK so most accidents whilst drunk would be connected, but one can imagine a situation whereby it was immaterial.

Really? Maybe own damage while drunk in a no fault as against an untraced or uninsured driver. MIB would exclude as well IIRC. But I can't envisage any claim where primary liability is established against the policyholder where intoxication wouldn't be material to the risk.

Yes, was talking about own damage. Maybe a tree fell on the car at some traffic lights ? Being drunk would not be material to the loss.

And anyway, mere "intoxication" is hard to prove without a conviction. How does the insurer prove breach ? They can't breath test them !

[Noger]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

Cost Captain said:

If I drive blind folded or with my hands tied behind my back am I insured?

Yes

For TP yes. For Own Damage, no, it was deliberate.

[checkmate91]

It's the vehicle which is insured, yes? Not the driver, so if you drive your own car and smash it up whilst drunk, unless there's a specific exclusion, you'll be paid out. Exclusions relate to the use of the car (racing, trials, taxis), not the state of the driver, unless specifically excluded.

I thought part of the risk premium that we all endure is that occasionally some of us speed and some of us DUI

[R1 Loon]

Somnophore said:

It's all depends what it says in your policy, most insurers would try to refuse to indemnify your losses if you are found to be over the DD limit, however will have to deal with the third party claims under RTA rules.

An insurer will NOT try to refuse indemnity unless the policy wording specifically excludes drink-driving. Why do people insist on perpetuating the myth that they will? Especially someone who reckons he works in insurance

Somnophore said:

However some insurers surprisingly will still pay out for the clients damage when they have been drink driving and had an accidnt. I won't name names as that may be considered irresponsible but a very few will still pay out.

Why is it "surprising"? They don't exclude it, therefore it's covered. And the bias between covered vs not covered is significantly in favour of covered. Feel free to name names, as it's not a name & shame exercise, as you seem to be very clued up on the industry.