Accident while unfit through alcohol within the limit

[stefankondziu]

HI my name is Konrad , a while ago my wife had an accident on the road after the accident she failed the breath test by 0.15 after a couple of hours she had a blood test done and that one was 0.50 which is within the legal limit. Police did not take the case to court for drink driving but the investigation is in progress for careless driving. My insurance company said they will not pay me out because she had alcohol in her blood and that was the cause of the accident. In general exceptions, there is a point
.. if driving while unfit through alcohol, drugs or other substances whether prescribed or not
In my opinion, if British law states that she was not over the legal limit surely she was fit to drive the car otherwise what would be a point to have the legal limit
I have already sent the letter with complaint to the insurance company and today on the phone they said I might be even entitled to pay for the third part expenses

please help if you know a good solisitor which could help me with my case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17489887 i have found that online and I belive that my insurance company is wrong Please help kind regards Konrad

[J4CKO]

Leaving aside anythign about being anywhere near the limit, as I would imagine you have both questioned the wisdom of that.

Thats a tough one, they would need to prove she was unfit, if she passed based on the current UK law then that should be enough for the insurance company, accident happen all the time and I dont think they should be able to let themselves off paying by deeming she was unfit, if the Police and CPS have decided no case to answer.

[kambites]

"Unfit to drive" is an incredibly vague statement but I would imagine the onus has to be on the insurance company to prove that she was not fit, and I would hope that's at least reasonably hard to do if she was under the legal limit when tested. You certainly need to engage someone who knows what they're talking about, but I wouldn't know who I'm afraid.

Does your insurance include legal representation?

[anonymous-user]

Have you asked her you these questions.

Does she have a drink problem?. Was she on the school run.? In my eyes you crash with alcohol in your system it has effected her driving.

I'm not preaching I've been there.

[stefankondziu]

she dont have drinking problem she did have couple of pints day before but as results came back she was within the limit. i am not sure what you ment by school run (kids to school ) no she was not

[DanL]

kambites said:

"Unfit to drive" is an incredibly vague statement but I would imagine the onus has to be on the insurance company to prove that she was not fit, and I would hope that's at least reasonably hard to do if she was under the legal limit when tested. You certainly need to engage someone who knows what they're talking about, but I wouldn't know who I'm afraid.

Does your insurance include legal representation?

You say that, but she blew over at the roadside - as there was also a crash, you’d have to say on the face of it she was unfit to drive.

Of course, this is where Konrad comes back to say someone drove into the back of her and she’s blameless, but given that they’re paying for the third party I’m assuming they were at fault...

Konrad, as an aside - good luck with this thread. I suspect it won’t go well.

[kambites]

Thesprucegoose said:

In my eyes you crash with alcohol in your system it has effected her driving.

Whether that's true or not, it's besides the point. The policy didn't say "if your driving was effected by alcohol" it said "if you are unfit to drive due to alcohol". Very different thing.

I'm sure my reactions are measurably slower on the way home from work than on the way in because I'm slightly more tired and if I had an accident it would be difficult to argue that it hadn't contributed at least something to it... that doesn't mean I'm "unfit to drive due to fatigue" every day when I drive home from work.

Obviously I'm not passing judgement on whether in this case she was fit, or unfit, to drive... just that we don't have enough information to form a conclusion either way.

[stefankondziu]

it does not look good i do realise but i dont get the idea of having the limit if you still within it you are not covered

[Jakg]

DanL said:

ou say that, but she blew over at the roadside - as there was also a crash, you’d have to say on the face of it she was unfit to drive.

The roadside machine is an indicator only, hence why another test is carried out.

[kambites]

DanL said:

ou say that, but she blew over at the roadside - as there was also a crash, you’d have to say on the face of it she was unfit to drive.

I've blown "over the limit" on a breathalyzer when I haven't been drinking at all - they're crap, that's why they can't prosecute without taking a blood sample. You could argue that anyone who causes an accident pretty much by definition wasn't "fit to drive" or they wouldn't have caused the accident, but that doesn't mean any one particular thing was the cause of the lack of fitness.

My guess would be that if given any indication that the OP is going to contest it, the insurers will back down.

[SturdyHSV]

kambites said:

The policy didn't say "if your driving was effected by alcohol"

Just to be that guy, hopefully it'd never say that, as it should be 'affected'

2 pints the night before and she blew over the limit? What is she, a field mouse? Or were they pints of vodka?

[kambites]

SturdyHSV said:

kambites said:

The policy didn't say "if your driving was effected by alcohol"

Just to be that guy, hopefully it'd never say that, as it should be 'affected'

Oops! One typo a spell-checker can't catch.

[SturdyHSV]

kambites said:

Oops! One typo a spell-checker can't catch.

Oh, wait, is that in poor taste?

[Trax]

DanL said:

ou say that, but she blew over at the roadside - as there was also a crash, you’d have to say on the face of it she was unfit to drive.

Of course, this is where Konrad comes back to say someone drove into the back of her and she’s blameless, but given that they’re paying for the third party I’m assuming they were at fault...

Konrad, as an aside - good luck with this thread. I suspect it won’t go well.

I don't see how it should. Driver has accident, has proper evidential test at Police Station to see if she is driving illegally, she is found to be not, so no further action. I would have thought the legal definition of being fit to drive should be sufficient for the insurer to pay the claim. It would be a complaint to insurer, then refer to FOS for me.

[SpeckledJim]

Is this in the UK?

Doesn't sound right to me. If she's under the limit, she's legal.

(and I believe, even if she was over, as long as her insurance is in place and correct, then she is covered even if she's plastered?)

[kambites]

SpeckledJim said:

(and I believe, even if she was over, as long as her insurance is in place and correct, then she is covered even if she's plastered?)

She's covered for third-party claims. As far as I know there's nothing to stop the insurer having a clause denying a first-party payout if she's over the limit (which she wasn't).

[stefankondziu]

for all who have a good lough at my case i just hope it will never happend to you my wife is not drinking person she is i would say about 50 kg and non stop o diet she had a few and she admited so please help insted

[captain_cynic]

stefankondziu said:

HI my name is Konrad , a while ago my wife had an accident on the road after the accident she failed the breath test by 0.15 after a couple of hours she had a blood test done and that one was 0.50 which is within the legal limit. Police did not take the case to court for drink driving but the investigation is in progress for careless driving. My insurance company said they will not pay me out because she had alcohol in her blood and that was the cause of the accident. In general exceptions, there is a point
.. if driving while unfit through alcohol, drugs or other substances whether prescribed or not
In my opinion, if British law states that she was not over the legal limit surely she was fit to drive the car otherwise what would be a point to have the legal limit
I have already sent the letter with complaint to the insurance company and today on the phone they said I might be even entitled to pay for the third part expenses

please help if you know a good solisitor which could help me with my case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17489887 i have found that online and I belive that my insurance company is wrong Please help kind regards Konrad

Once alcohol is involved, all bets are off. Insurers are well within their rights to refuse coverage if the driver was impaired. It is up to you to demonstrate that alcohol was not the reason behind the collision. If the charge was careless or negligent driving, then you've got practically no chance as the insurer will just say the negligence was due to impairment.

[Cat]

kambites said:

I've blown "over the limit" on a breathalyzer when I haven't been drinking at all - they're crap, that's why they can't prosecute without taking a blood sample.

No requirement for a blood sample, a breath test at the station is sufficient.

Cat

[SpeckledJim]

kambites said:

SpeckledJim said:

(and I believe, even if she was over, as long as her insurance is in place and correct, then she is covered even if she's plastered?)

She's covered for third-party claims. As far as I know there's nothing to stop the insurer having a clause denying a first-party payout if she's over the limit (which she wasn't).

Surely if the insurance company are looking to use the presence of alcohol as a reason to not pay out, they'll have to point out the part of the policy where they say what their arbitrary limit will be, if it's not the same as the law.

All of us have some alcohol in our blood, so they'd have to define the level at which it's 'too much'.