Drink Driving Insurance

GAZ237

prowla wrote: »

I wonder how the insurance company can pursue the motorist for costs, etc.

Surely that's what insurance is for?

You bet them the price of the premium you will have an accident and they bet you the price of the policy coverage that you won't.

(P.S. There's no point in lecturing the OP now, is there... And there's no point in going into the ifs and buts of what might've happened had the planets been differently aligned at the instant it happened, either.)

Also there's not much point in your post.

In the terms and conditions of your policy. Its normal that one of the conditions, is that they can reclaim losses, from yourself in the advent of an accident due to excess alcohol.

Aretnap

bluenoseam wrote: »

Ultimately as others have pointed out, they can pursue her for costs, but the limit to what can be paid out is ultimately what one can afford. I think the judge would have scope to assess what would be a "fair" amount that could be reclaimed understanding that it's highly unlikely your daughter would be able to afford something crazy like a £1m claim. However I suspect this figure will be somewhere between the pricey and insanely expensive levels, something she'll need to get used to especially if she wishes to drive again.

Civil debts don't get reduced to take the debtor's circumstances into account - the insurer can claim the full amount. Having said that, obviously she can't be forced to hand over money that she doesn't have, and if the bailiffs end up being called in to enforce it they can't take the basic essentials of life from her. The full amount would remain payable however, and if she can't afford to pay her options would be to hope the insurers give up trying to collect it (not impossible if she had no money and no obvious prospect of getting any), to repay it over a long period, or to go bankrupt. A big personal injury claim would leave bankruptcy as the only option, but if her biggest worries are whiplash and a claims management company then I assume we're not talking millions.

Aretnap

prowla wrote: »

I wonder how the insurance company can pursue the motorist for costs, etc.

Surely that's what insurance is for?

You bet them the price of the premium you will have an accident and they bet you the price of the policy coverage that you won't.

They can put a clause in the policy to that effect, yes. It's quite common, especially at the cheaper end of the market. Admiral say, for example,

If an accident happens whilst You or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of Your current Certificate of Motor Insurance:

-is found to be over the prescribed limit for alcohol
-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 Judgment, of any claim arising from the accident.

The Road Traffic Act Section 148 makes specific provision for this type of clause - it comes under "the physical or mental condition of the person driving the vehicle" so they can't exclude it from the policy altogether, but they can recover third party payouts under subsection 4.

Added: It's quite an onerous exclusion, so I'd have thought it would have to have been pointed out reasonably prominently when the policy was bought, rather than buried in the small print.

vikingaero

Let's not jump the gun here.

Whilst the Insurer may have a specific clause to claim back from the Insured it doesn't always mean that they will do. Co-operate, keep her head down and maybe they won't enforce it.

For example Admiral Group have the dreaded "Standard Parts Replacement Clause" and for some people they apply it and I've heard of others who haven't had it applied.

HappyMJ

Aretnap wrote: »

Civil debts don't get reduced to take the debtor's circumstances into account - the insurer can claim the full amount. Having said that, obviously she can't be forced to hand over money that she doesn't have, and if the bailiffs end up being called in to enforce it they can't take the basic essentials of life from her. The full amount would remain payable however, and if she can't afford to pay her options would be to hope the insurers give up trying to collect it (not impossible if she had no money and no obvious prospect of getting any), to repay it over a long period, or to go bankrupt. A big personal injury claim would leave bankruptcy as the only option, but if her biggest worries are whiplash and a claims management company then I assume we're not talking millions.

Aretnap wrote: »

They can put a clause in the policy to that effect, yes. It's quite common, especially at the cheaper end of the market. Admiral say, for example,
The Road Traffic Act Section 148 makes specific provision for this type of clause - it comes under "the physical or mental condition of the person driving the vehicle" so they can't exclude it from the policy altogether, but they can recover third party payouts under subsection 4.

Added: It's quite an onerous exclusion, so I'd have thought it would have to have been pointed out reasonably prominently when the policy was bought, rather than buried in the small print.

A whiplash claim to a third party would be covered by the insurance company regardless of the alcohol level of the driver. It's part of their legal obligation to cover personal injury claims to third parties. They might seek to recover costs which they don't have to cover such as property damage and hire cars for the third party and they certainly won't pay out for damage to the drivers car.

Jack_Regan

HappyMJ wrote: »

A whiplash claim to a third party would be covered by the insurance company regardless of the alcohol level of the driver. It's part of their legal obligation to cover personal injury claims to third parties. They might seek to recover costs which they don't have to cover such as property damage and hire cars for the third party and they certainly won't pay out for damage to the drivers car.

Yes they have a legal obligation, but what's to stop them going after the driver?

opinions4u

If it looks onerous she can declare herself bankrupt.

Hintza

ic wrote: »

Just be glad that she and the innocent party aren't dead, and that the innocent party are being looked after. Its her own fault - leave her to deal with it, "young and stupid" shouldn't be an excuse. I presume the police are on her case? A driving ban, fine, and prison time are all on the cards.

There is always one that has to be self righteous about this. Just remember your comments here when something jumps up and bites your family as it surely will someday.

mattyprice4004

Your daughter goes out on the p1ss then has a crash, and you're more bothered about the innocent 3rd party she's caused injury and inconvenience to claiming for whiplash?

Think you need to rethink your priorities, and let them claim what they're entitled to. I hope they bleed her dry, what a complete moron your daughter is. With any luck the Police will take it all the way.

Aretnap

I hope they hang, draw and quarter her, then sell her family into slavery to pay for the whiplash.

Do I win?