Car insurance and drink driving
Options
I was reading the policy doc for Admiral multicar and noticed the section on drink driving, basically if you have an accident when drunk then Admiral reduce cover the road traffic act only, so they won't pay out for your car, and Admiral will then sue you for any payout they have made.
I should say I'm not in favour of drink driving, before anyone thinks that I am.
I did wonder how common this insurance clause is. I couldn't find it in Aviva. I think it is just that a drunk loses his car too as well as his license and being fined. But, the rest is very open ended, say the drunk write off a Ferrari or injures someone, the total cost could be huge. It leads to very uneven justice. Hit a Ford and you're out of pocket, hit a Ferrari and you're bankrupt (injuring someone => bankrupt seems more just).
I wonder if the clause is common and how many people who drink and drive realise just what they are risking.
I should say I'm not in favour of drink driving, before anyone thinks that I am.
I did wonder how common this insurance clause is. I couldn't find it in Aviva. I think it is just that a drunk loses his car too as well as his license and being fined. But, the rest is very open ended, say the drunk write off a Ferrari or injures someone, the total cost could be huge. It leads to very uneven justice. Hit a Ford and you're out of pocket, hit a Ferrari and you're bankrupt (injuring someone => bankrupt seems more just).
I wonder if the clause is common and how many people who drink and drive realise just what they are risking.
0
Comments
-
..I wonder if the clause is common and how many people who drink and drive realise just what they are risking.
[STRIKE]People[/STRIKE] Criminals who drink and drive should worry more about killing or injuring other people rather than how much an accident might cost them financially.0 -
I was reading the policy doc for Admiral multicar and noticed the section on drink driving, basically if you have an accident when drunk then Admiral reduce cover the road traffic act only, so they won't pay out for your car, and Admiral will then sue you for any payout they have made.
I should say I'm not in favour of drink driving, before anyone thinks that I am.
I did wonder how common this insurance clause is. I couldn't find it in Aviva. I think it is just that a drunk loses his car too as well as his license and being fined. But, the rest is very open ended, say the drunk write off a Ferrari or injures someone, the total cost could be huge. It leads to very uneven justice. Hit a Ford and you're out of pocket, hit a Ferrari and you're bankrupt (injuring someone => bankrupt seems more just).
I wonder if the clause is common and how many people who drink and drive realise just what they are risking.
I am with MoreThan and I think they are the same. Perhaps it is to make people think again before drink driving. Wouldn't give a damn if a drunk driver hit a ferrari or a reliant robin - but if it was one of my kids they hit...0 -
The Admiral clause is better even than that - it attempts to hold the policyholder liable if any of the named drivers have a drink related accident, so it would be a really bad way to find out that your wife is a bit of a secret lunchtime drinker or that your teenage son does the sort of stupid things that teenagers sometimes do...
It's not the norm. Zurich (added: and MoreThan) have a similar clause, but AFAIK they're the only others to include it as standard (apparently a few others impose it if the policyholder has previous convictions for drink driving, but I've never had to find that out for myself). One or two others (eg Hastings) reduce cover to third party only in the event of a drink related accident, which seems fair enough. Most insurers have no specific terms relating to drink driving.0 -
I don't blame them to be honest, why should an insurer put themselves at extra unecessary risk of multi million pound claims because they happen to have insured an alcohol addict.
It would make me more inclined to insure with such a responsible company, there's plenty of unheard fly by night insurers for those that are high risks.0 -
It is increasingly common that being a drunk driver invalidates your insurance.
Despite your insurance being invalid the insurer would still have RTA obligations towards any third parties but have a right of recover against both the insured and the driver at the time. This is a legal right of recovery in addition to a contractual one as it normally appears in the policy wording.
Unfortunately my knowledge of the actual law now becomes a little unclear. In a similar case of a stolen vehicle your insurers can have RTA obligations but the right of recovery is only against the driver (ie the thief). You the case of the son taking dads car for a joy ride and has a crash. If its a stolen vehicle the right of recovery is only against the son, if the father allowed the noninsured driver then the recovery is against both/either. So the insurer only considers it a theft claim if the son is reported to the police as a case of theft.
Under the non-contractual obligations for drink drivers I am not sure if the policyholder can avoid the responsibility for reimbursing the insurer as per theft. Obv if the policy says the insured is always liable then that doesnt matter.
The police deal with "justice" and will deal with the criminal aspect of the issue irrespective of if they hit a Fiesta or a Ferrari
The insurers deal with common law and indemnity and nothing to do with "justice". They have to indemnify the TP, the insured/ driver has to in turn indemnify the insurer.
In my experience recovery rates from the insured is very low though, I remember a couple of meaty PI claims that had to be dealt with as RTA insurer of the vehicle and the Ph was repaying the £10k bill at £1 a week as they'd convinced others that it was all they could afford.0 -
I wonder how far and how often this clause is followed through?
In order for them to recoup the losses if you hit a Ferrari, the drunk policyholder would need very large assets..0 -
nomoneytoday wrote: »I wonder how far and how often this clause is followed through?
In order for them to recoup the losses if you hit a Ferrari, the drunk policyholder would need very large assets..
Read above
It actually depends on the level of the debt. Very small and the rate is ok as most people can ultimately afford a modest sum even if its over a year or so to pay it back.
Large debts will depend if the person is a home owner, if they are then a charge order can ultimately be placed on the property and any equity taken when its eventually sold. Probably wont get it all back but is going to be the only way to realistically get a material dent in a £150,000 debt. If they rent, work on NMW there is little point pursuing them through the courts to add more cost to the insurers losses when the probability of recover is so low.
Middle size debts are probably the ones where they make least headway as most cant afford to pay them straight off but they arent substantial enough for the insurer to think its worth while going as far as charge orders etc, especially when you considered potential bad press etc.
Overall my experience of it was of very low levels of recovery and more often the insurance was simply cancelled, debt written off and the insured effectively black listed because of the combination of a drink driving conviction and having insurance cancelled.
There were some cases where people just paid up or cases where people were pay £1 a week for the next 192 years0 -
If they don't drink and drive in the first place they don't run the risk of this financial lottery.I think it is just that a drunk loses his car too as well as his license and being fined. But, the rest is very open ended, say the drunk write off a Ferrari or injures someone, the total cost could be huge. It leads to very uneven justice. Hit a Ford and you're out of pocket, hit a Ferrari and you're bankrupt (injuring someone => bankrupt seems more just).
Knowing / having known a couple of people who lost relatives to drunk drivers and seeing what it has done to their lives, I couldn't care less how much a drink driver has to pay out. The higher the better to be honest.0 -
The Admiral clause is better even than that - it attempts to hold the policyholder liable if any of the named drivers have a drink related accident, so it would be a really bad way to find out that your wife is a bit of a secret lunchtime drinker or that your teenage son does the sort of stupid things that teenagers sometimes do...
It's not the norm. Zurich (added: and MoreThan) have a similar clause, but AFAIK they're the only others to include it as standard (apparently a few others impose it if the policyholder has previous convictions for drink driving, but I've never had to find that out for myself). One or two others (eg Hastings) reduce cover to third party only in the event of a drink related accident, which seems fair enough. Most insurers have no specific terms relating to drink driving.
I can live with them voiding cover for the driver if the driver was drinking. But making the policyholder responsible for the additional drivers is just wrong.
All the more reason not to allow other people to drive your car, and if you need to, get a policy with someone else.0 -
londonTiger wrote: »I can live with them voiding cover for the driver if the driver was drinking. But making the policyholder responsible for the additional drivers is just wrong.
As per previous post, it goes beyond just drink driving but if your policy is cancelled for any other reason (eg non-payment, false disclosure etc) and a ND has an accident after the policy is cancelled or you allow someone to drive who isnt covered by any policy (eg if your mate says they have DOC cover on their own insurance but it turns out they dont) then in all these cases there is a legal right of recovery against both PH and driver.
As a policyholder you take overall responsibility to the vehicle in connection witht he insurance, this is supported by common law but otherwise is logical as the PH is the only person in contract with the insurer and so the easiest target.
As the policyholder your NCD drives down the total cost of the insurance even if you had 3 named drivers and you are only personally driving the car ~30% of the time and so there is a certain amount of swings and roundabouts involved.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards