Accident while unfit through alcohol within the limit
Discussion
captain_cynic said:
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... 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
stefankondziu said:
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
Konrad, whilst i in some way feel your pain, you've asked these questions on a rather sizeable UK Forum & as such will get a wide variety of responses.Your defence of she's not a drinking person doesn't quite stack up as you've said she had a few (is that more than the original 2) drinks the night before, however she still blew over the limit the following day, so that would suggest she had considerably more than 2 pints.
Your wife's entitled to drink as much alcohol as she wants assuming she's an adult, but she'll be judged for then driving a motor vehicle whilst still apparently under the influence of alcohol at the time she was pulled over. You also mention her blood test came back under at 50mg, but i thought in the UK the legal limit was 35mg?
Sorry i can't be more helpful as regards the validity of her/your insurance.
w8pmc said:
Your wife's entitled to drink as much alcohol as she wants assuming she's an adult, but she'll be judged for then driving a motor vehicle whilst still apparently under the influence of alcohol at the time she was pulled over. You also mention her blood test came back under at 50mg, but i thought in the UK the legal limit was 35mg?
The measurement is different between blood & breath.The legal limit you’re referring to relates to a charge of driving with excess alcohol not driving whilst unfit through drink / drugs. AFAIK there is no limit for unfit, the point to prove being that driving ability was impaired by drink / drugs, so a prosecution is still possible, though possibly unlikely.
Edited by Bigyoke on Monday 23 April 15:34
Two circumstances are becoming confused I think.
She was not over the prescribed blood/alcohol limit. Only just under is the same as under.
She might well have been unfit to drive through drink.This is a separate circumstance. The insurance company might be of the opinion, one that I share, that if you are near the limit your driving is affected by alcohol.
That said, I don't see how the insurance company can get out of their legal obligations as they will have little way of supporting unfit to drive through drink. The fact an accident occurred is not, of itself, enough and drivers who are sober have accidents.
Seems like a case for a lawyer.
She was not over the prescribed blood/alcohol limit. Only just under is the same as under.
She might well have been unfit to drive through drink.This is a separate circumstance. The insurance company might be of the opinion, one that I share, that if you are near the limit your driving is affected by alcohol.
That said, I don't see how the insurance company can get out of their legal obligations as they will have little way of supporting unfit to drive through drink. The fact an accident occurred is not, of itself, enough and drivers who are sober have accidents.
Seems like a case for a lawyer.
w8pmc said:
You also mention her blood test came back under at 50mg, but i thought in the UK the legal limit was 35mg?.
80 for the UK, 50 for scotland. Well under UK limit.Incidentally, even Brake suggest it's not practical to go under 20 as at that level you're looking at trace levels.
No idea what will happen with insurance though.
I don't think many people would expect to have had a drink the night before, be almost half the legal limit the next day and then have insurance pulled after a prang. Perhaps everyone else carries a pocket breathalyser or something and I missed the memo.
roachcoach said:
80 for the UK, 50 for scotland. Well under UK limit.
Incidentally, even Brake suggest it's not practical to go under 20 as at that level you're looking at trace levels.
No idea what will happen with insurance though.
I don't think many people would expect to have had a drink the night before, be almost half the legal limit the next day and then have insurance pulled after a prang. Perhaps everyone else carries a pocket breathalyser or something and I missed the memo.
Thanks.Incidentally, even Brake suggest it's not practical to go under 20 as at that level you're looking at trace levels.
No idea what will happen with insurance though.
I don't think many people would expect to have had a drink the night before, be almost half the legal limit the next day and then have insurance pulled after a prang. Perhaps everyone else carries a pocket breathalyser or something and I missed the memo.
This does raise another question though & relates to how quickly the wife's absorbing alcohol & how 2 pints (assuming it was lager/cider), surely can't be accurate, however we don't know all the timings.
Wife drinks 2 pints of (assuming lager or cider) between say 20-22:00. Following day at say 08:00 is involved in an accident & breathalised, blowing 95mg (o/p said .15 over) she is arrested at the roadside as has clearly failed the breath test. I'm surprised the Police allow 2hrs to pass before completing the blood test as surely this is better done as quickly as possible?
Anyhow, in that 2hrs the wife has dropped from .95 to .50mg? I get that the roadside breath test isn't arrow accurate, but that's one hell of a drop in 2 hours & that being the case, how can 2 pints mean she must have been at around 400mg the previous evening?
So the question is quite simple. The Ins co is taking the view that their exemption of being unfit through alcohol is applicable and the OP takes the view that his wife wasn't unfit (by the logic of the legal limit). I doubt that we can do anything more than agree with one side or the other.
Practically, I think the OP's wife will have to complain, the Ins Co will refuse to change their view and it can then be escalated to the FOS.
How much money is involved in the refused claim OP? I also assume that getting insurance again will be expensive if the Ins Co prevail in their view.
Yuk.
Bert
Practically, I think the OP's wife will have to complain, the Ins Co will refuse to change their view and it can then be escalated to the FOS.
How much money is involved in the refused claim OP? I also assume that getting insurance again will be expensive if the Ins Co prevail in their view.
Yuk.
Bert
captain_cynic said:
Once alcohol is involved, all bets are off. Insurers are well within their rights to refuse coverage if the driver was impaired.
Wrong, unless it says so in the policy. An excess alcohol clause is usually only applied if you disclose a previous drink / drive offence. Although Admiral have it in their standard wording for all customers .But for most people with a normal policy not with Admiral, being drunk does not effect the insurance position. Insurance is to cover you against doing stupid things, even illegal things. Drunk, speeding, driving too close to car in front, driving carelessly, that's what you're insuring for. If you crashed your car doing 40 in a 30, you'd expect to be covered. So over the drink limit is covered too.
Many thanks for all your reply i have contacted loads of solisitors today maybe 6 but still did not get reply I have already involve ombudsmen finance services and now I am waiting for reply with final decision from my hasting direct insurance I found also that I got legal cover on my policy is that mean they will pay for my solisitors DO ANY BODY KNOW A GOOD SOLISITORS WHICH DESPIUTE CLAIMS
STOP SHOUTING & contact https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
captain_cynic said:
Once alcohol is involved, all bets are off. Insurers are well within their rights to refuse coverage if the driver was impaired.
Wrong, unless it says so in the policy. An excess alcohol clause is usually only applied if you disclose a previous drink / drive offence. Although Admiral have it in their standard wording for all customers .But for most people with a normal policy not with Admiral, being drunk does not effect the insurance position. Insurance is to cover you against doing stupid things, even illegal things. Drunk, speeding, driving too close to car in front, driving carelessly, that's what you're insuring for. If you crashed your car doing 40 in a 30, you'd expect to be covered. So over the drink limit is covered too.
w8pmc said:
roachcoach said:
80 for the UK, 50 for scotland. Well under UK limit.
Incidentally, even Brake suggest it's not practical to go under 20 as at that level you're looking at trace levels.
No idea what will happen with insurance though.
I don't think many people would expect to have had a drink the night before, be almost half the legal limit the next day and then have insurance pulled after a prang. Perhaps everyone else carries a pocket breathalyser or something and I missed the memo.
Thanks.Incidentally, even Brake suggest it's not practical to go under 20 as at that level you're looking at trace levels.
No idea what will happen with insurance though.
I don't think many people would expect to have had a drink the night before, be almost half the legal limit the next day and then have insurance pulled after a prang. Perhaps everyone else carries a pocket breathalyser or something and I missed the memo.
This does raise another question though & relates to how quickly the wife's absorbing alcohol & how 2 pints (assuming it was lager/cider), surely can't be accurate, however we don't know all the timings.
Wife drinks 2 pints of (assuming lager or cider) between say 20-22:00. Following day at say 08:00 is involved in an accident & breathalised, blowing 95mg (o/p said .15 over) she is arrested at the roadside as has clearly failed the breath test. I'm surprised the Police allow 2hrs to pass before completing the blood test as surely this is better done as quickly as possible?
Anyhow, in that 2hrs the wife has dropped from .95 to .50mg? I get that the roadside breath test isn't arrow accurate, but that's one hell of a drop in 2 hours & that being the case, how can 2 pints mean she must have been at around 400mg the previous evening?
She blew 35.15 micrograms of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of breath at the roadside.
Then a bit later provided 50 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood.
Edited by bigandclever on Monday 23 April 17:36
stefankondziu said:
Many thanks for all your reply i have contacted loads of solisitors today maybe 6 but still did not get reply I have already involve ombudsmen finance services and now I am waiting for reply with final decision from my hasting direct insurance I found also that I got legal cover on my policy is that mean they will pay for my solisitors DO ANY BODY KNOW A GOOD SOLISITORS WHICH DESPIUTE CLAIMS
Why would they take themselves to court?What does the wording on her policy say?
Why does your spelling etc get really bad on one post then ok on the next?
Am I going to call shenanigans?
Interesting that the same user posted a very similar albeit different version of events in Polish on one of the Polish language forums for Polish expats in the UK.
http://www.mojawyspa.co.uk/forum/5/62385/Jazda-pod...
So she fell asleep whilst drunk driving? No sympathy here and hopefully she loses her UK driving rights too.
http://www.mojawyspa.co.uk/forum/5/62385/Jazda-pod...
So she fell asleep whilst drunk driving? No sympathy here and hopefully she loses her UK driving rights too.
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
I’ll say this up front, I don’t believe your story. .. 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
This is the policy booklet for Hastings Direct Motor. It does have an exclusion around whilst unfit through alcohol - General Exceptions no. 4 Page 28 of 56. However, that is totally unenforceable, the one above it is enforceable as it defines that exceeding the legal limit is sufficient grounds to deny the claim.
https://www.hastingsdirect.com/documents/Policy_do...
Having said I don’t believe you, here’s an offer. You don’t need a solicitor, I will do this for free. Younhave nothing to lose as I won’t prejudice your claim. I want to see a photo of the letter denying your claim though on here. You can take a photo and upload it with ease, feel free to block out any personal details.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wrong, unless it says so in the policy. An excess alcohol clause is usually only applied if you disclose a previous drink / drive offence. Although Admiral have it in their standard wording for all customers .
But for most people with a normal policy not with Admiral, being drunk does not effect the insurance position. Insurance is to cover you against doing stupid things, even illegal things. Drunk, speeding, driving too close to car in front, driving carelessly, that's what you're insuring for. If you crashed your car doing 40 in a 30, you'd expect to be covered. So over the drink limit is covered too.
You need to update your knowledge and lay off Admiral. Drink driving clauses for own damage are widespread across the industry as this case demonstrates (see policy booklet)But for most people with a normal policy not with Admiral, being drunk does not effect the insurance position. Insurance is to cover you against doing stupid things, even illegal things. Drunk, speeding, driving too close to car in front, driving carelessly, that's what you're insuring for. If you crashed your car doing 40 in a 30, you'd expect to be covered. So over the drink limit is covered too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff