So, you are drunk and have a crash.
Discussion
Are you still covered by your insurance ?
Myself and the wife were discussing this following a really bad crash locally in which it seems alcohol and massive speed were a factor, hence the debate, she didnt think that you would be covered if you were very drunk, I had never pondered this before but thinking about it I reckon that whatever you drink and whatever speed you do you are still covered but you wont ever get insured again.
I suggested that if she took her thinking to the logical conclusion and you have a low speed bump and were below the legal limit but still registering they wouldnt pay out.
Myself and the wife were discussing this following a really bad crash locally in which it seems alcohol and massive speed were a factor, hence the debate, she didnt think that you would be covered if you were very drunk, I had never pondered this before but thinking about it I reckon that whatever you drink and whatever speed you do you are still covered but you wont ever get insured again.
I suggested that if she took her thinking to the logical conclusion and you have a low speed bump and were below the legal limit but still registering they wouldnt pay out.
I'm sure they would at least attempt to avoid the policy. The insurer would have to pay out for third party damage owing to the RTA 88.
Surely this is a risk they accept when calculating the premium and handing out a policy, non?
I say they would cover you and ABSOLUTELY rape you next time around.
Surely this is a risk they accept when calculating the premium and handing out a policy, non?
I say they would cover you and ABSOLUTELY rape you next time around.
J4CKO said:
I suggested that if she took her thinking to the logical conclusion and you have a low speed bump and were below the legal limit but still registering they wouldnt pay out.
Well I would say that 'being below the legal limit' & being 'drunk' are two completely different things, so on that basis your argument holds no water.just for the record, how fast & how drunk were you / mrs. (delete as appropriate)
There is NO WAY on earth the insurers would pay out if you were hammered and had a crash!
It's bad enough trying to get them to pay out when everything is above board. The fact that your insurance becomes invalid if you are caught with even a remapped car says to me that if you DD you are effectively throwing your insurance away.
It's bad enough trying to get them to pay out when everything is above board. The fact that your insurance becomes invalid if you are caught with even a remapped car says to me that if you DD you are effectively throwing your insurance away.
You and all Third Parties are covered, unless the policy specifically excludes damage caused by drink-driving. In any event only the own damage can be excluded.
Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
R1 Loon said:
You and all Third Parties are covered, unless the policy specifically excludes damage caused by drink-driving. In any event only the own damage can be excluded.
Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
bloke down the pub says you're wrong, actually.Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
R1 Loon said:
You and all Third Parties are covered, unless the policy specifically excludes damage caused by drink-driving. In any event only the own damage can be excluded.
Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
I wouldn't have thought insurance companies can opt out of third party liabilities, but i would think they'd seek to recover costs afterwards.Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
PHmember said:
J4CKO said:
I suggested that if she took her thinking to the logical conclusion and you have a low speed bump and were below the legal limit but still registering they wouldnt pay out.
Well I would say that 'being below the legal limit' & being 'drunk' are two completely different things, so on that basis your argument holds no water.just for the record, how fast & how drunk were you / mrs. (delete as appropriate)
My point about being drunk versus say having had 1 small glass of wine with a meal, being below the legal limit but still registering on a breathalyser was me trying to place where the insurance company would draw the line, would it factor at all, would they try to deny the claim, is there anythign in the policy that specifies not havign any alcohol in blood.
Its a moot point anyway as generally after a big crash, if you are drunk, you are probably more worried about the effect on the rest of your life, job, family, friends, liberty and remorse.
Edited by J4CKO on Wednesday 5th January 23:26
heebeegeetee said:
R1 Loon said:
You and all Third Parties are covered, unless the policy specifically excludes damage caused by drink-driving. In any event only the own damage can be excluded.
Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
I wouldn't have thought insurance companies can opt out of third party liabilities, but i would think they'd seek to recover costs afterwards.Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
J4CKO said:
Hang on, this isnt me or the missus ! it was a debate precipitated due to an accident that happened locally and we got to discussing what the insurance companies line would be on it and I decided to ask the collective wisdom of the mighty Pistonheads ! my thinking is that they accept the risk and would probably pay out at least the third party claims.
My point about being drunk versus say having had 1 small glass of wine with a meal, being below the legal limit but still registering on a breathalyser was me trying to place where the insurance company would draw the line, would it factor at all, would they try to deny the claim, is there anythign in the policy that specifies not havign any alcohol in blood.
Its a moot point anyway as generally after a big crash, if you are drunk, you are probably more worried about the effect on the rest of your life, job, family, friends, liberty and remorse.
The insurance company won't draw the line unless you specifically bought a policy excluding drink-driving cover for any damage to your own vehicle and that would have to have a ban for DD applied to your licence for it to stick.My point about being drunk versus say having had 1 small glass of wine with a meal, being below the legal limit but still registering on a breathalyser was me trying to place where the insurance company would draw the line, would it factor at all, would they try to deny the claim, is there anythign in the policy that specifies not havign any alcohol in blood.
Its a moot point anyway as generally after a big crash, if you are drunk, you are probably more worried about the effect on the rest of your life, job, family, friends, liberty and remorse.
The TP angle can NEVER be excluded.
R1 Loon said:
heebeegeetee said:
R1 Loon said:
You and all Third Parties are covered, unless the policy specifically excludes damage caused by drink-driving. In any event only the own damage can be excluded.
Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
I wouldn't have thought insurance companies can opt out of third party liabilities, but i would think they'd seek to recover costs afterwards.Policies that esxclude drink-driving are rare and will probably only be found on newer policies like RSA e-choice.
Sits back and awaits the usual pedantry, urban myths and bull that will inevitably follow.
R1 Loon said:
You and all Third Parties are covered, unless the policy specifically excludes damage caused by drink-driving.
I have to confess, I don't know what "In any event only the own damage can be excluded." means. 
DanGPR said:
There is NO WAY on earth the insurers would pay out if you were hammered and had a crash!
Why would that be any different to if you had a crash and you were speeding? Both are against the law. If the insurance companies expect all drivers to drive like angels, all premiums would be the same.
Edited by carl_w on Wednesday 5th January 23:30
It all depends on the policy wording, and this will vary massively between insurers.
Admiral Group (Admiral, Elephant, Bell, Diamond, etc) seem to put a drink and drugs exclusion on all their policies these days, and have done for a few years. If your insurer hasn't specified in their wording it's excluded then they'll have to pay up, afterall the policy wording (along with your policy schedule) is essentially the contract between you and your insurer.
Even in Admirals case they'll have to pay out third parties due to RTA, but I expect their exclusion will be worded in such a way they'll seek to recover the outlay from you.
Admiral Group (Admiral, Elephant, Bell, Diamond, etc) seem to put a drink and drugs exclusion on all their policies these days, and have done for a few years. If your insurer hasn't specified in their wording it's excluded then they'll have to pay up, afterall the policy wording (along with your policy schedule) is essentially the contract between you and your insurer.
Even in Admirals case they'll have to pay out third parties due to RTA, but I expect their exclusion will be worded in such a way they'll seek to recover the outlay from you.
R1 Loon is absolutely right.
Still grinds my gears since surely it fails the 'reasonable care' part of most policies.
Of course even if you're totally wasted & you are involved in an accident, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's your fault, or that the booze is a contributing factor.
This is not a recommendation to drink drive however.
Still grinds my gears since surely it fails the 'reasonable care' part of most policies.
Of course even if you're totally wasted & you are involved in an accident, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's your fault, or that the booze is a contributing factor.
This is not a recommendation to drink drive however.
heebeegeetee said:
I have to confess, I don't know what "In any event only the own damage can be excluded." means.
There are two types of damage caused in an accident. Own damage, is the damage to your own property (car / bike / van etc) and Third Party (TP) damage which is the damage you cause to others property (car / house / dog / body etc).TP damage / injury can NEVER be excluded by an insurer under a policy condition EVER.
There are very rare instances where it can be, but al th eplanets need to be aligned for that to happen.
One other thing is that own damage exclusion for DD is very, very, very rare.
grumbas said:
It all depends on the policy wording, and this will vary massively between insurers.
Admiral Group (Admiral, Elephant, Bell, Diamond, etc) seem to put a drink and drugs exclusion on all their policies these days, and have done for a few years. If your insurer hasn't specified in their wording it's excluded then they'll have to pay up, afterall the policy wording (along with your policy schedule) is essentially the contract between you and your insurer.
Even in Admirals case they'll have to pay out third parties due to RTA, but I expect their exclusion will be worded in such a way they'll seek to recover the outlay from you.
What he said ^^ The clause has been in our insurance policies for a number of years, As R1 Loon correctly stated third parties are covered but the insurer would look to recover the money from the drunk driver.Admiral Group (Admiral, Elephant, Bell, Diamond, etc) seem to put a drink and drugs exclusion on all their policies these days, and have done for a few years. If your insurer hasn't specified in their wording it's excluded then they'll have to pay up, afterall the policy wording (along with your policy schedule) is essentially the contract between you and your insurer.
Even in Admirals case they'll have to pay out third parties due to RTA, but I expect their exclusion will be worded in such a way they'll seek to recover the outlay from you.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff