We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
car accident & drink driving
Comments
-
The payment to a third party is not a benefit that the policyholder profits from.0
-
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed explanations and that was indeed the case I remembered!
I think I was originally trying to come at this from the angle of the policyholder (the OP). If his insurance policy did not say anything about an exclusion, he would not be protected by his insurance policy. If a 3rd party has a claim as a result of an illegal act by the policyholder, the case law appears to say that they should get damages from the policyholder, and if he doesn't pay, then the insurer should pay.
In this circumstance the insurer is likely to sue the original policyholder for damages (to cover the cost of the claim by the 3rd party).
Does that make sense chaps?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards