Car Insurance when Drink Driving

thenudeone

It might be interesting to see how the Financial Ombudsman has treated complaints about alcohol exclusion causes in travel insurance polices:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/120/120-alcohol-exclusions.html

Although not directly relevant to a court case, it does shed light on the arguments and factors on both sides.

Parking_Trouble

thenudeone wrote: »

It might be interesting to see how the Financial Ombudsman has treated complaints about alcohol exclusion causes in travel insurance polices:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/120/120-alcohol-exclusions.html

Although not directly relevant to a court case, it does shed light on the arguments and factors on both sides.

Interesting. Easy get out clause for travel insurance. It is typically the subjective opinion of a doctor.

With the car insurance it is an objective opinion, usually banged to rights with a DD conviction.

InsideInsurance

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

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.

Just slightly contradicting yourself there!

How can it save them money but not keep the claim down? If its kept down their costs then its also kept down the insured's cost when they come to repay

Parking_Trouble

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Just slightly contradicting yourself there!

How can it save them money but not keep the claim down? If its kept down their costs then its also kept down the insured's cost when they come to repay

You know exactly what I mean.

There is no challenge because that costs money and effort so it's easier to go with the claim unchallenged. All the insurers do it and the cost is passed to the consumer.

We all know about repair cost being higher, abuse of credit hire, referral fees (in the past) and the insurers themselves know the high rate of iffy PI claims. They try to pay up without a medical so no evidence needed at all other that , "yes I had a stiff neck for a day or two"

Fine when it is covered by your insurance policy. Consumers don't generally care about the feeding of the gravy train, doubt they are even aware of it.

Bit different when insurer has done nowt to mitigate the losses and comes after you to pay the bill.

InsideInsurance

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

You know exactly what I mean

No I dont, insurers look at the overall cost which includes their cost of defending claims. What is the point of spending £3,000 to try and save £500? Whats even the point of spending £500 to try and save £300 when you've only a 50/50 of saving it or not as on average you'll be down.

Its a numbers game which insurers ultimately believe they are winning otherwise they would change their tactic. If the insurer is winning then so is the person that then has to reimburse them. Simples

Jaroda43

Yeah even I don’t see any reason why you should spend 3000 when the chance of saving 500 is 50:50. If I would have been at this place, I won’t go even when chances were 100%. Though I have seen such wrong doings when I was at US and assisted a DUI lawyer. But I think, these things are too big to put up a fight.