If you have an accident and are tested positive...

[TonyRPH]

If you have an accident and are tested positive for substance abuse (drink or drugs) and then charged accordingly, is your insurance invalidated immediately, or do you have to be found guilty in court first?

EDIT: I should add this is not me (I think I'd know if it was!) - somebody I know of has had an accident, and potentially been charged and I'm curious.

Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 30th August 10:15

[TwigtheWonderkid]

On most policies, it isn't invalidated, and they still pay even if you are drunk or drugged up. Some policies have a clause restricting cover to third party if drunk/on drugs, (usually applied if you've had a previous drink/drugs offence) and just a few policies exclude cover for all (Admiral group I think)

[anonymous-user]

You are not banned, until you are banned, in court - i.e. drunk drivers can carry on driving until their court day, so the same must hold true of their insurance.

A charge is not a conviction.

[carboy2017]

true they can carry on driving till the court convicts them which can take a few months

@OP do tell your friend not to trust any law firm who promises to win the case for him/her and avoid the ban as in 99% of the cases the CPS will win the case and the client loses their hard earned money to some greedy lawyer and it has been happening for a long time

RogerDodger said:

You are not banned, until you are banned, in court - i.e. drunk drivers can carry on driving until their court day, so the same must hold true of their insurance.

A charge is not a conviction.

[TonyRPH]

@carboy2017 - I'm happy to say this person is not a friend - they're somebody I know of, rather than someone I know.

[LosingGrip]

TonyRPH said:

If you have an accident and are tested positive for substance abuse (drink or drugs) and then charged accordingly, is your insurance invalidated immediately, or do you have to be found guilty in court first?

EDIT: I should add this is not me (I think I'd know if it was!) - somebody I know of has had an accident, and potentially been charged and I'm curious.

Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 30th August 10:15

My old policy said that I wouldn't be covered for any damages i caused whilst drink or drug driving, but third parties would be. I'd guess they would then come after me for the fees.

[Stoofa]

It's the standard "An insurance company can never dispense their 3rd party obligations".
So get drunk, go for a drive, thankfully all the potential people, vehicles and street furniture is still covered, but you could well find damage to you and your own vehicle not.

[MDL111]

LosingGrip said:

TonyRPH said:

If you have an accident and are tested positive for substance abuse (drink or drugs) and then charged accordingly, is your insurance invalidated immediately, or do you have to be found guilty in court first?

EDIT: I should add this is not me (I think I'd know if it was!) - somebody I know of has had an accident, and potentially been charged and I'm curious.

Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 30th August 10:15

My old policy said that I wouldn't be covered for any damages i caused whilst drink or drug driving, but third parties would be. I'd guess they would then come after me for the fees.

That’s what I always thought - they will pay out to third parties to hold them harmless but will come after you to reclaim the money (a perfectly sensible approach imo)

[ZOLLAR]

RogerDodger said:

You are not banned, until you are banned, in court - i.e. drunk drivers can carry on driving until their court day, so the same must hold true of their insurance.

A charge is not a conviction.

Not quite as black and white as that, as previously mentioned the Admiral Group has an exclusion for drink and drugs.
The condition makes no mention of a conviction for the action only that if you're found to be over the legal limit, you could be breathalysed and be over but the Police don't always bring a prosecution I believe.

In that situation the insurer could still refuse under the condition as you were found over the legal limit.

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 car 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.


Re TP liability mentioned above, naturally the TP will be dealt with but as per the condition of the policy the insurer will look to recover their losses.

As per TWIG comment it varies per insurer and there are insurers which don't have such clause.

[Dave Hedgehog]

My friend was done for drunk driving after an accident the morning after.

Insurance only paid out third party, they then sued him for their third party costs and won

[Pica-Pica]

Dave Hedgehog said:

My friend was done for drunk driving after an accident the morning after.

Insurance only paid out third party, they then sued him for their third party costs and won

Which would be colossal if you injured a youngster who needed life-time care and support.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MDL111 said:

That’s what I always thought - they will pay out to third parties to hold them harmless but will come after you to reclaim the money (a perfectly sensible approach imo)

All very well unless you have other drivers named on your policy and they are the ones that drive drunk. And not all drunk drivers roll out of the pub and jump in the car. The morning after the night before is still the same offence, rightly so, but can catch out people who think they never drink and drive.

[Eyersey1234]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

MDL111 said:

That’s what I always thought - they will pay out to third parties to hold them harmless but will come after you to reclaim the money (a perfectly sensible approach imo)

All very well unless you have other drivers named on your policy and they are the ones that drive drunk. And not all drunk drivers roll out of the pub and jump in the car. The morning after the night before is still the same offence, rightly so, but can catch out people who think they never drink and drive.

In that situation would it be the policy holder who got sued or the named driver?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eyersey1234 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

MDL111 said:

That’s what I always thought - they will pay out to third parties to hold them harmless but will come after you to reclaim the money (a perfectly sensible approach imo)

All very well unless you have other drivers named on your policy and they are the ones that drive drunk. And not all drunk drivers roll out of the pub and jump in the car. The morning after the night before is still the same offence, rightly so, but can catch out people who think they never drink and drive.

In that situation would it be the policy holder who got sued or the named driver?

The policyholder. They are the one who entered into the contract with the insurance company. The policy holder could then sue the additional driver, assuming of course he'd entered into a contract with the driver explaining to them the consequences of driving whilst over the limit and the additional driver had understood and agreed.

[Mr Tidy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

On most policies, it isn't invalidated, and they still pay even if you are drunk or drugged up. Some policies have a clause restricting cover to third party if drunk/on drugs, (usually applied if you've had a previous drink/drugs offence) and just a few policies exclude cover for all (Admiral group I think)

Ageas have an exclusion for all sections of the policy too, irrespective of your previous history - so I went elsewhere!

A bit like Cloverleaf and similarly controversial Lloyds syndicates used to do back in the 70s/80s.

Maybe we are just regressing?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mr Tidy said:

Ageas have an exclusion for all sections of the policy too, irrespective of your previous history - so I went elsewhere!

That's odd. I've just checked the Ageas Optima policy online (the only one I could download) and not only is there no drink/drugs exclusion, they also provide legal defence costs in the event of an accident, for any motoring offence or manslaughter, including if you are over the limit