Should the insurer pay?

[FMOB]

Saw this on the BBC news site.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-6869...

Apparently the driver ignored the road closure and because of the windy conditions had a crash on an empty road, considering they ignored the road closure and associated risks should the insurer pay?

Contractually I assume they would but isn't it one of those cases where the driver brought it on themselves and should take some of the pain from their actions.

[Richard-D]

It's the driver's fault. That's the point of insurance, to pay when it's his fault.

[Rayny]

My (uninformed) opinion would be that if the road was closed, then it is no longer a road.
Is the car insured for off-roading?

[alscar]

The Insurer will pay.
Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.

[Alex Z]

Rayny said:

My (uninformed) opinion would be that if the road was closed, then it is no longer a road.
Is the car insured for off-roading?

It's very much still a road, just one you shouldn't be driving on.
If it ceased to be a road, you wouldn't need a driving license or insurance to be on it

[NikBartlett]

Perhaps the driver should be presented the bill for the emergency services call out and the subsequent cleanup costs. The insurance company should also cancel the policy which will give the driver a lifetime of insurance pain and a nice financial reminder every year of how stupid they were.

[Pica-Pica]

I expect a big marker to be placed on the driver by the insurance industry.

[Beetnik]

NikBartlett said:

Perhaps the driver should be presented the bill for the emergency services call out and the subsequent cleanup costs.

He will be and, because he's insured, he'll be able to pass it on to his insurance company for payment.

[Aretnap]

alscar said:

The Insurer will pay.
Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.

Actually, there is usually a catch-all clause along the lines of "you must take reasonable care to prevent damage to your vehicle". However the Financial Ombudsman and the courts quite rightly don't like insurance companies using such vague terms to deny customers claims, and so they are very rarely invoked, and the level of stupidity that's required before they can be invoked is very high indeed.

Which is just as well - otherwise you could have your claim rejected because you were driving above the door limit, or reversed without checking your mirrors properly, or pulled out into too small a gap... in fact pretty much every accident would involve at least one driver who could be said to have brought it on himself so would have his claim rejected. Which would rather defeat the object of having insurance in the first place.

[Aretnap]

NikBartlett said:

Perhaps the driver should be presented the bill for the emergency services call out and the subsequent cleanup costs.

He will be. The costs will be covered by his insurance company though - that's what liability insurance is for.

[FMOB]

Aretnap said:

alscar said:

The Insurer will pay.
Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.

Actually, there is usually a catch-all clause along the lines of "you must take reasonable care to prevent damage to your vehicle". However the Financial Ombudsman and the courts quite rightly don't like insurance companies using such vague terms to deny customers claims, and so they are very rarely invoked, and the level of stupidity that's required before they can be invoked is very high indeed.

Which is just as well - otherwise you could have your claim rejected because you were driving above the door limit, or reversed without checking your mirrors properly, or pulled out into too small a gap... in fact pretty much every accident would involve at least one driver who could be said to have brought it on himself so would have his claim rejected. Which would rather defeat the object of having insurance in the first place.

I think driving across a motorway bridge that has been closed due to high winds and said winds result in you having a crash meets quite a high bar and way past exceptionally stupid.

[Sebring440]

Pica-Pica said:

I expect a big marker to be placed on the driver by the insurance industry.

How does that work, then?

[Dingu]

Should rip his licence up and not give it back. What a self entitled prick.

Safe to say he will be told to FRO at renewal.

[smokey mow]

Setting aside the original insurance question, would the drivers disregard of the road closed sign and then accident not create a strong prosecution case for driving without due care and attention?

[Pit Pony]

alscar said:

The Insurer will pay.
Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.

Good job, because most accidents are caused by stupidity one way or the other.

Of the accidents, i had years ago, every accident I had was due to over enthusiasm or stupidity as I like to call it now.

[alscar]

FMOB said:

I think driving across a motorway bridge that has been closed due to high winds and said winds result in you having a crash meets quite a high bar and way past exceptionally stupid.

Quite agree but they will still pay.

[Countdown]

alscar said:

FMOB said:

I think driving across a motorway bridge that has been closed due to high winds and said winds result in you having a crash meets quite a high bar and way past exceptionally stupid.

Quite agree but they will still pay.

If only Insurance Companies had a clause that says "we will NOT pay out any claims if you have gone way past exceptionally stupid!"