Relative's car insurer won't pay out!!!

satan666wayne

Altarf wrote: »

No it doesn't.

me thinks it dose,

impy78

It doesn't if the thief is drunk, actually, because they're not the one with the policy.


The point is that the guy, relative or not stole the car. Had he not lived in her house then they would've paid out.

Altarf

satan666wayne wrote: »

me thinks it dose,

And can you back that up in any way? For example by pointing to the section in this Norwich Union policy that invalidates it if you are drunk - http://www.norwichunion.com/library/pdfs/policy-car-insurance.pdf

vikingaero

Being drunk definitely doesn't mean no insurance.

If you are drunk and crash into a 3rd party then your insurers are liable for any personal injury and property damage cost. Whether your own vehicle is covered depends on the insurer. A select few insurers specifically exclude cover to the insured vehicle if the loss is a direct result of the intoxication of the insured driver. Most general market insurers will still pay out for the loss - for instance, a family of 4 may be insured on one vehicle. Then the wayward son gets battered and drives home from the pub and crashes. It would be inequitable for the parents as the owner of the insured vehicle to suffer a loss and be unable to replace the vehicle.

MyUserNamesTaken

BritBrat wrote: »

Being drunk equals no insurance anyway.

That's not correct. It depends upon the wording on the policy. If there's no specific clause stating that the policy will be invalidated due to drink driving, then there's cover. Third parties will always be covered, regardless of alcohol, as it's a legal requirement under the RTA. The insurance company will have to pay out to third parties, then claim the money back from you if there is a clause invalidating the insurance in the case of drink driving.