drunk driver crashed into my parked car

nomis21

Hi,
Heard a bang last night, looked out and to my horror a car had smashed into my parked car. I dont have off road parking, my car is parked outside my property on the street.
I rushed out to and the driver was still in the car, i asked for him to get out and noticed he was drunk, my partner phoned the police. From the time a took the police to land the guy did a runner leaving the scene of the accident, police arrived and managed to chase catch him and arrest him. He failed the breathalyser and they informed me he was insured.
Since this happened a friend has informed me his insurance may be void as he had been drinking.! Will this mean i may have to claim on my own insurance? furious if this is the case.!
Surely this cant be right?

Thanks

Alter_ego

No, the third party element of his policy will not (and cannot) be voided.

rs65

nomis21 wrote: »

Since this happened a friend has informed me his insurance may be void as he had been drinking.

Ignore your friend. The insurer will pay their RTA obligations (and maybe recover their costs from the drunk driver).

nomis21

Great thanks for the advice

poppasmurf_bewdley

The other good news is, if he is found guilty of drink driving, his own insurers will not pay for the damage to his own car.

And when he gets his licence back, his insurance will be stratospherically high.

nomis21

Gets better :-)

Marktheshark

It only needs the car involved to have insurance held on it, the insurance status of the "driver" is irrelevant.
Check on ASK MID that car is insured.
If it is you are in the clear, if not you are going to need the drivers details, better to get them from the police before they chuck him out.

HappyMJ

nomis21 wrote: »

Great thanks for the advice

He won't be able to claim for any damages to his own car. That would be a condition in most policies. Once convicted and disqualified he'll find it hard and very expensive to get insurance again. They will always pay out any third parties affected by the criminal actions of the insured. If everyone drove around with zero alcohol, fully awake and with their full attention on the road driving at appropriate speeds for the conditions then we probably wouldn't need such high insurance premiums as there would be far fewer incidents happening. Driving without due care and attention is also an offence and insurers can reduce payouts for that too.

dacouch

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

The other good news is, if he is found guilty of drink driving, his own insurers will not pay for the damage to his own car.

And when he gets his licence back, his insurance will be stratospherically high.

Some Insurers contain an exclusion for damage to your own vehicle following a drink driving conviction. Some Insurers do not have this exclusion so it will depend on who he's insured with

dacouch

HappyMJ wrote: »

He won't be able to claim for any damages to his own car. That would be a condition in most policies. Once convicted and disqualified he'll find it hard and very expensive to get insurance again. They will always pay out any third parties affected by the criminal actions of the insured. If everyone drove around with zero alcohol, fully awake and with their full attention on the road driving at appropriate speeds for the conditions then we probably wouldn't need such high insurance premiums as there would be far fewer incidents happening. Driving without due care and attention is also an offence and insurers can reduce payouts for that too.

Drink Driving has a very very small effect on everyone else's premiums.

I'm not aware of any Insurer who contain a restriction reducing their payment to their own insured if their convicted of Careless Driving.

I doubt whether such a restriction would be enforceable anyway

HappyMJ

dacouch wrote: »

Drink Driving has a very very small effect on everyone else's premiums.

I'm not aware of any Insurer who contain a restriction reducing their payment to their own insured if their convicted of Careless Driving.

I doubt whether such a restriction would be enforceable anyway

Drink driving has a measurable effect on everyone's premiums. Once a drink driver has been convicted and disqualified many won't be driving again for many years and certainly won't be paying back the damages claimed when they had insurance at a time when they once were a good driver without any convictions and had cheap insurance.

Drink driving causes millions in damages to others in property damage and lives lost reducing drink driving by stronger enforcement will reduce accidents and claims made on insurance which will have a follow on effect of reducing everybody's premiums.

Insurers can reduce payouts if they feel the driver was negligent. A driver found not guilty of careless driving in court could raise a civil claim for damages against the insurer if they feel it was not their fault and no one was convicted in court but all drivers involved were charged and taken to court. Who's fault was the accident then? Who's going to pay for the back and neck pain of the insured in that case?