Car insurance and drink driving

rev_henry

I've always thought this is one reason why Admiral are usually the cheapest for young drivers, often by a massive amount. It was only when I hit about 20 that other companies starting quoting anything remotely sensible.

zagfles

Why stop at drunk driving, why not apply the same policy to speeding, driving without due care, or indeed an accident as a result of any traffic offence?

zagfles

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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.

Really? So if eg you arrange for a garage to pick your car up for a service, and it turns out the garage didn't have insurance for their driver or their insurance was invalid for some reason, you can be held liable?

InsideInsurance

zagfles wrote: »

Really? So if eg you arrange for a garage to pick your car up for a service, and it turns out the garage didn't have insurance for their driver or their insurance was invalid for some reason, you can be held liable?

Legally yes, if an insurer would actually enforce it where the insured has been duped is another matter. By a mate, possibly would as there is too much conflict of interests and the two could be in cahoots. With a big business that you would reasonably trust, probably not.

Chances of recovery arent good but chances of bad press are reasonably high. Not worth it.

Hintza

Don't worry people the way the world is going if you sneeze and crash the car the spy in the cab will soon let your insurer know that you were driving with a cold which was against clause 2952.h of your insurance policy and you are now liable.

How far do you take this?

jaydeeuk1

So moral of the story, only drink and drive if you are an alcoholic benefit taking, sky sports watching toothless chav where a few months in prison would feel like a holiday and who can't afford the consequences. If you have assets like a house or a decent job, then don't even think about it.

InsideInsurance

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

So moral of the story, only drink and drive if you are an alcoholic benefit taking, sky sports watching toothless chav where a few months in prison would feel like a holiday and who can't afford the consequences. If you have assets like a house or a decent job, then don't even think about it.

Unless you have a very decent job in which case you can just pay off the third party and never tell anyone the incident happened.

zagfles

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Legally yes, if an insurer would actually enforce it where the insured has been duped is another matter. By a mate, possibly would as there is too much conflict of interests and the two could be in cahoots. With a big business that you would reasonably trust, probably not.

Chances of recovery arent good but chances of bad press are reasonably high. Not worth it.

How does this stand up in law? Surely you can't be liable for something someone else does just because you've lent them something (unless perhaps it was your fault because eg the item was faulty)?

If I lend someone my ladder and they fall off it, am I liable? Or a lawnmower, hedge cutter etc and they injure someone, or a knife and they stab someone? Better never lend anyone anything!

InsideInsurance

zagfles wrote: »

How does this stand up in law? Surely you can't be liable for something someone else does just because you've lent them something (unless perhaps it was your fault because eg the item was faulty)?

If I lend someone my ladder and they fall off it, am I liable? Or a lawnmower, hedge cutter etc and they injure someone, or a knife and they stab someone? Better never lend anyone anything!

It stands up in law as its written into the contract, the road traffic act (for certain circumstances) and common law. Its basically your responsibility to ensure those you allow drive your car have insurance to do so and in theory you shouldnt simply assume that they do.

Your circumstances are slightly different though because you need to remember the flow of money. So to take the uninsured mate as an example. He has a fault accident whilst borrowing your car, so he personally is liable for the damage he caused to the third party. Assuming he can't pay for their losses then your insurance is required to deal with the third party claim as required by the Road Traffic Act. You lending the car to an uninsured driver has created the liability on your insurers and so they look to you to reimburse them for that liability that your actions created.

They technically could recover from either of you but on the basis that the RTA liability came about because the friend couldnt pay there is little point spending more money pursuing them. Some insurers will accept their RTA responsibility without the courts instruction to avoid additional costs and in these cases they may attempt recovery from both parties.

You lending a ladder to someone could result in a claim against you if they fell of if you knowingly gave them a defective ladder or a tool that was inappropriate for the job etc but that is different because there is the direct connection between the claimant and you.

When I worked for a leasing company (mainly industrial equipment, ships, planes etc rather than cars or personal items) they paid about £200,000 a year insurance premiums because there was a small chance that they could be held liable for third party damages if the company leasing the asset had an accident and had failed to buy insurance (or insufficient insurance) and couldnt afford to settle the claim themselves then as the legal owners of the boat or CNC lathe etc could possibly be argued to be liable or tied up in litigation trying to argue they are.

michelleafc

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.

All the more reason not to allow other people to drive your car, and if you need to, get a policy with someone else.

I have unfortunately found this out the absolute worst way, it has happened to me. My boyfriend is a named driver on my Elephant policy. He has written my car off in a drink driving accident.


As a result my insurance will be invalidated if he's prosecuted. I am liable for all police/nhs charges and damage caused by his accident and I am guessing I will lose my 11 years no claims, my insurance will be sky high for next car and yet I didn't actually personally even have an accident.


I need a new car, as mine is now worth scrap and I will be absolutely out of pocket.


Never put anyone on your policy as a named driver, because you never know, how could I have known that this would have even been a possibility.