Car Insurance when Drink Driving

OnanTheBarbarian

FlameCloud is correct with the relevant statutes he has quoted, along withe the usual policy terms that give the insurer a right of recovery against their policyholder.

The issue for the OP's sister here is not whether there is a right of recovery, but whether they will proceed with such attempted action in the event she is found to not be "financially viable".

Parking_Trouble

Anyone seen these end up in court?

What do you advocate? Accept it and pay up, or accept it and go bankrupt?

Or at least put up a fight to challenge whether the amount of the claim is valid, whether the insurer has challenged the claim and sought their own engineers report, medical reports, witness statements, etc, etc.

Leaving it all to various third parties and sitting back paying up is the default, lazy approach and is not appropriate where the driver is to be pursued for the costs.

FlameCloud

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

I would hazard a guess you know very little on this topic.
Check some policies. Admiral Group for sure and one maybe two others. It is not as common as you think.

Have checked - thanks for the tip. Here are 3 major insurers (the first three I found no less!) and what they have to say-

Axas-

10.
Compulsory motor legislation
If, under the law of any country this policy covers you in, we have to make a payment which we would not otherwise have paid under this policy, we may recover any claim payment from you or
from the person who the claim was made against.

Aviva’s-

[FONT=&quot]Payments made under compulsory insurance regulations and rights of recovery[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](10) If the law in any country in which this policy operates requires [/FONT][FONT=&quot]us [/FONT][FONT=&quot]to settle a claim which, if this law[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]had not existed, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]would not be obliged to pay, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]shall be entitled to recover such payments from[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the relevant [/FONT][FONT=&quot]person insured [/FONT][FONT=&quot]or the person who incurred the liability.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Zurich’s-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If, by law, we must make a payment that is not covered by the policy, we have the right to recover this payment from you or the person who is liable.[/FONT]

FlameCloud

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Anyone seen these end up in court?

What do you advocate? Accept it and pay up, or accept it and go bankrupt?

Or at least put up a fight to challenge whether the amount of the claim is valid, whether the insurer has challenged the claim and sought their own engineers report, medical reports, witness statements, etc, etc.

Leaving it all to various third parties and sitting back paying up is the default, lazy approach and is not appropriate where the driver is to be pursued for the costs.

.... except you have contractually agreed at the start of the policy to allow your insurer to handle the claim in any way that they see fit.

Parking_Trouble

FlameCloud wrote: »

Have checked - thanks for the tip. Here are 3 major insurers (the first three I found no less!) and what they have to say-

Axas-

10.
Compulsory motor legislation
If, under the law of any country this policy covers you in, we have to make a payment which we would not otherwise have paid under this policy, we may recover any claim payment from you or
from the person who the claim was made against.

Aviva’s-

[FONT=&quot]Payments made under compulsory insurance regulations and rights of recovery[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](10) If the law in any country in which this policy operates requires [/FONT][FONT=&quot]us [/FONT][FONT=&quot]to settle a claim which, if this law[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]had not existed, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]would not be obliged to pay, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]shall be entitled to recover such payments from[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the relevant [/FONT][FONT=&quot]person insured [/FONT][FONT=&quot]or the person who incurred the liability.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Zurich’s-[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If, by law, we must make a payment that is not covered by the policy, we have the right to recover this payment from you or the person who is liable.[/FONT]

Hardly compelling evidence.

This is what you need.

Section 5 of the Admiral policy contains the following :-

"If an accident happens whilst you or any person entitled to drive under Section 5 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs, or was driving under the influence of drink or drugs, no cover under the policy will be provided and instead, our liability will be restricted to meeting our obligations as required by the Road Traffic Act. In those circumstances, we reserve the right to 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."

Parking_Trouble

Zurich (brokers) had a simliar clause and withdrew it. So did Allianz and they withdrew it.

Why do you think that is?

FlameCloud

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Zurich (brokers) had a simliar clause and withdrew it. So did Allianz and they withdrew it.

Why do you think that is?

I'm not sure. Why don't you be clever and tell us?

Parking_Trouble

FlameCloud wrote: »

I'm not sure. Why don't you be clever and tell us?

No. I've given you some facts to counter your assumptions.

Go do some research and enlighten me.

Third time lucky - Anyone seen these end up in court?

OnanTheBarbarian

The insurers and MIB do take recovery action when the circumstances permit and when there are realistic prospects of making a recovery.

I am currently engaged in assisting an individual where his insurers are squaring up to hose him down for their outlay, but the circumstances give him a defence.

Parking_Trouble

No doubt the insurers with a specific exclusion clause will take recovery action. That could just be a stream of letters asking you to pay up, or suggesting a payment plan, threatening court action perhaps.

I would challenge the diligence of the insurer to keep the claim to a minimum. PI claims are a good example where the insurer does naff all but accept the evidence of those paid by the agents of the claimant.
It saves the insurer money but not in the best interest of the drink driver getting chased for all the costs.