Should the insurer pay?
Discussion
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.
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.
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.Is the car insured for off-roading?
If it ceased to be a road, you wouldn't need a driving license or insurance to be on it
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.
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. Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.
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 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. Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.
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.
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. Policies don’t unfortunately contain stupidity exclusion clauses.
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 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. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff