Drink Driving and insurance

[boyse7en]

This popped up on a newsfeed in a town near me.

Is the copper correct?


Had a quick look but I can't find anything in my insurance docs about not being covered - not that I had plans to test the theory

[Cold]

I probably wouldn't rely on the police for legal advice.

[deckster]

Depends entirely on your insurance policy but yes, I have had at least one which had exclusions for accidents caused whilst under the influence.

Edited to add...

My Elephant insurance policy said:

11.Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 3 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is driving your vehicle and:
● is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
● is driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
● fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason

No cover under the policy will be provided and instead, liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Law. In those circumstances, we will recover from you or the driver, all sums paid (including all legal costs), whether in settlement or under a Judgement, of any claim arising from the accident

Seems pretty clear: if you crash when you're drunk, you're paying.

Edited by deckster on Thursday 29th June 13:52

[Dog Star]

It's dependent on the policy. The OHs policy doesn't, mine makes no mention of it.

Personally, and this is purely from a pragmatic point of view and putting chest beating "kiddie murderer" rhetoric aside, I think cover should be in force; the insurance company takes on an element of risk when they quote, and they charge ex-drink drivers a LOT, presumably because of this extra risk.

[Shaw Tarse]

Doesn't insurance pay out to the third party?

[TooMany2cvs]

Shaw Tarse said:

Doesn't insurance pay out to the third party?

Yes, but I suspect they're referring to the policyholder's own losses.

They can also hand the third party bill back to the policyholder in some circumstances.

That SL doesn't look particularly written off, though.

[cbmotorsport]

A friends son had a skin full, lost it on a bend and ploughed into someones porch. Insurance paid for the third party only, and are now trying to recover the full amount form the boy. Idiot.

[Aretnap]

As above it depends on the terms of the policy.

Many insurers (historically the majority, though exclusions are becoming more common), have no exclusion at all, and would pay out in full, just as they would if you caused an accident by driving too fast, not looking where you were going, or otherwise driving like a pillock.

Some (eg Hastings, from memory) reduce cover to third party only - so no repairs to your own car but you are covered in full for any damage you cause to anyone else.

And some (eg the Elephant one quoted above) provide no cover under the policy at all, pay out to third parties only what they're obliged to pay by the Road Traffic Act, and then send you a bill for whatever they paid the third party. As that's potentially an unlimited amount of money it could end up being a very expensive night out indeed.

Edited by Aretnap on Thursday 29th June 14:17

[Tankrizzo]

cbmotorsport said:

A friends son had a skin full, lost it on a bend and ploughed into someones porch. Insurance paid for the third party only, and are now trying to recover the full amount form the boy. Idiot.

Any structural damage to the rest of the house? That could get VERY expensive.

[TooMany2cvs]

Tankrizzo said:

cbmotorsport said:

A friends son had a skin full, lost it on a bend and ploughed into someones porch. Insurance paid for the third party only, and are now trying to recover the full amount form the boy. Idiot.

Any structural damage to the rest of the house? That could get VERY expensive.

...and then these people complain because their premium's a couple of hundred quid a month...

[Dog Star]

Aretnap said:

Many insurers (historically the majority, though exclusions are becoming more common), have no exclusion at all, and would pay out in full, just as they would if you caused an accident by driving too fast, not looking where you were going, or otherwise driving like a pillock.

Which is how I see insurers should treat it - I'm not one of those people who get all shrieky and hysterical about drink drivers, not unless they're a serial offender at any rate - people do stupid st. People make mistakes. People miscalculate. That's what insurance is for. If they didn't do any of these things we wouldn't need insurance.

[Magic919]

Admiral told me they don't cover drunk driving.

[Aretnap]

Magic919 said:

Admiral told me they don't cover drunk driving.

Admiral have the same clause as the Elephant one posted above - they're the same company.

[TwistingMyMelon]

Leave them out to dry TBH, you drink and crash pished you deserve everything you get , first mistake or not


I

[Durzel]

Dog Star said:

Which is how I see insurers should treat it - I'm not one of those people who get all shrieky and hysterical about drink drivers, not unless they're a serial offender at any rate - people do stupid st. People make mistakes. People miscalculate. That's what insurance is for. If they didn't do any of these things we wouldn't need insurance.

Sticking up for drink drivers' rights, on principal or otherwise, seems like a strange hill to want to die on to me.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Durzel said:

Dog Star said:

Which is how I see insurers should treat it - I'm not one of those people who get all shrieky and hysterical about drink drivers, not unless they're a serial offender at any rate - people do stupid st. People make mistakes. People miscalculate. That's what insurance is for. If they didn't do any of these things we wouldn't need insurance.

Sticking up for drink drivers' rights, on principal or otherwise, seems like a strange hill to want to die on to me.

The problem is what if the driver isn't the policyholder? A company car for example. The firm is paying to insure its assets. If their employee crashes whilst drunk, should the firm lose out by not having their car covered?

[hast2]

I don't condone drink driving, and if you come out the pub and jump in your car after several pints you deserve everything you get. But what if you have an accident on the way to work after you had a few beers the night before (it was a lovely evening and you had a BBQ?). You Get breathalysed and are a bit over the limit and get charged, should you now be public enemy number one? And if their was substantial 3rd party loses, should you now potentially lose your home etc?

[TwistingMyMelon]

Simples, watch what you drink the night before

Or if that is concern to you, read the small print of insurance companies and use one that will pick up the pieces should you crash whilst over the limit

Easier to watch what you drink the night before

[cbmotorsport]

Tankrizzo said:

cbmotorsport said:

A friends son had a skin full, lost it on a bend and ploughed into someones porch. Insurance paid for the third party only, and are now trying to recover the full amount form the boy. Idiot.

Any structural damage to the rest of the house? That could get VERY expensive.

No it was a lean to style porch. Just thank god nobody was going in or out of the house at the time.

[hast2]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Simples, watch what you drink the night before

Or if that is concern to you, read the small print of insurance companies and use one that will pick up the pieces should you crash whilst over the limit

Easier to watch what you drink the night before

I'm not concerned, I very rarely drink, but some of the previous comments seemed happy to pretty much hang anyone that was caught drink driving - just trying to point out that it could just as easily be anyone of us (especially if you pop to Scotland on holiday)