Drink Driving Insurance

George_Michael

paddedjohn wrote: »

Statistics show that 5% of all road casualties occurred when someone was driving over the legal alcohol limit.
95% are caused by sober people.

Statistics also show that in 2011 (the last full year that statistics have been published), 290 people were killed on the roads in the UK due to drunk driving.
Those 290 people made up 17% of the total killed on the roads in that year.

So, 5% of casualties are related to drink driving, but 17% of road deaths are also related to drink driving.
(in other words, getting close to 1 in 5 people who died due to road accidents in 2011 did so as a direct result of someone drinking and driving).

Johnmcl7

OP - this thread may be worth a read:

http://www.forum.drinkdriving.org/have-you-been-caught-convicted-drink-driving/34185.htm

It seems the amount isn't negotiable as the insurance company pays out and you are expected to to agree with their assessment and pay up. Some people have mentioned Admiral going no further if their claim is ignored but it seems clear if the insurer do attempt to claim against your daughter it would be worth getting legal advice.

John

esuhl

prowla wrote: »

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

Surely that's what insurance is for?

I guess insurance would only cover legal use of the vehicle.

If you allow your vehicle to become dangerously unroadworthy (perhaps with no valid MOT) and this causes an accident, I wouldn't expect the insurer to be liable. Similarly, if you are in a dangerously unfit state to drive.

It doesn't seem right that an insurer should be liable for the consequences of a crime committed by one of their policyholders.

But everyone's done something that's completely stupid. I just hope she learns her lesson and the repercussions don't hit her too hard... Thank god no one was hurt or killed.

Jamie_Carter

paddedjohn wrote: »

Statistics show that 5% of all road casualties occurred when someone was driving over the legal alcohol limit.
95% are caused by sober people.

And what percentage of road users are over the limit at any moment in time??

Avoriaz

paddedjohn wrote: »

Statistics show that 5% of all road casualties occurred when someone was driving over the legal alcohol limit.
95% are caused by sober people.

Does that mean we should all drive drunk?

Aretnap

esuhl wrote: »

I guess insurance would only cover legal use of the vehicle.

If you allow your vehicle to become dangerously unroadworthy (perhaps with no valid MOT) and this causes an accident, I wouldn't expect the insurer to be liable. Similarly, if you are in a dangerously unfit state to drive.

It doesn't seem right that an insurer should be liable for the consequences of a crime committed by one of their policyholders.

Pretty much anyone who causes an accident has committed a crime - careless driving if nothing else. Perhaps they were also speeding, talking on their mobile phones or failed to give way at a junction. Your insurance would cover you in all those circumstances. The whole point of third party insurance is to cover you when you're driving badly and illegally, so why make a particular exception for drink driving?

Insurers are liable for more or less any use of the car - it's deemed to be in the public interest that victims of car accidents have recourse to someone, so the law gives them very little wiggle room for avoiding third party claims. Even if your car is stolen, if the thief crashes into a bus queue your insurer has to pay compensation to the people in the bus queue. Don't feel too sorry for them - it's a risk they get paid to take on. And in some circumstances, depending on the terms if the policy, they can recover the compensation from the driver and/or policyholder. Or at least attempt to recover it - if a teenage car thief wipes out a bus queue, good luck getting 5 million out of him.

The roadworthiness of the vehicle and the medical condition of the driver are in the same boat as the driver's alcohol level - the insurer cannot use them as a basis for a avoiding third party claims, but they could choose to put a clause in the policy,allowing them to recover the money from you.

dacouch

Aretnap wrote: »

Pretty much anyone who causes an accident has committed a crime - careless driving if nothing else. Perhaps they were also speeding, talking on their mobile phones or failed to give way at a junction. Your insurance would cover you in all those circumstances. The whole point of third party insurance is to cover you when you're driving badly and illegally, so why make a particular exception for drink driving?

Insurers are liable for more or less any use of the car - it's deemed to be in the public interest that victims of car accidents have recourse to someone, so the law gives them very little wiggle room for avoiding third party claims. Even if your car is stolen, if the thief crashes into a bus queue your insurer has to pay compensation to the people in the bus queue. Don't feel too sorry for them - it's a risk they get paid to take on. And in some circumstances, depending on the terms if the policy, they can recover the compensation from the driver and/or policyholder. Or at least attempt to recover it - if a teenage car thief wipes out a bus queue, good luck getting 5 million out of him.

The roadworthiness of the vehicle and the medical condition of the driver are in the same boat as the driver's alcohol level - the insurer cannot use them as a basis for a avoiding third party claims, but they could choose to put a clause in the policy,allowing them to recover the money from you.

Generally Insurers are only liable for third party damage a thief does if the thief is identified.

In certain circumstances Insurers are not liable for third party injury / damage due to a medical condition.

dacouch

esuhl wrote: »

I guess insurance would only cover legal use of the vehicle.

If you allow your vehicle to become dangerously unroadworthy (perhaps with no valid MOT) and this causes an accident, I wouldn't expect the insurer to be liable. Similarly, if you are in a dangerously unfit state to drive.

It doesn't seem right that an insurer should be liable for the consequences of a crime committed by one of their policyholders.

But everyone's done something that's completely stupid. I just hope she learns her lesson and the repercussions don't hit her too hard... Thank god no one was hurt or killed.

Not having an MOT makes no difference to a car insurance policy except it may make a written off car worth less than a car with an mot

macman

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.)

But it's not for covering you against criminal acts knowingly committed while driving. In such cases the insurer may attempt to recover any 3rd party claims. You can't 'manage' this or limit it-your daughter just has to wait and see what develops.

Aretnap

dacouch wrote: »

Generally Insurers are only liable for third party damage a thief does if the thief is identified.

True - fair point. But if the thief is untraced it comes down to the MIB and the untraced drivers agreement doesn't it, so the insurance industry as a whole still ends up paying out.

In certain circumstances Insurers are not liable for third party injury / damage due to a medical condition.

What do you mean - the situation where a driver has an unexpected heart attack or similar at the wheel? In that case yes, there's no liability on either the insurer or the driver because there's no negligence.

I was thinking though of the situation of the driver with a known heart condition and an arm in a plaster cast who decides that it would be a good idea to go for a drive after not sleeping for three days due to a severe bout of flu. In that case they can't avoid a third party claim on the grounds of his medical condition, no matter how stupid or illegal the decision to drive was, can they?