New car insurance wording re drink and drugs – a worry ?

Monanore

Car insurance, quite rightly, will not pay you out if you were under the influence of drink or drugs.    ( They do pay the 3rd party under road traffic law but that’s not what I want to discuss ).

However, the relevant wording in policy documents seems to fall into 2 types. I’ll use typical examples.

 Some say that a conviction following an accident is required :

 “ You’re not covered for :

• We won’t cover loss or damage caused by anyone who is convicted for driving while
  under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of the accident. “

 And some do not  :

 “ If an accident happens while any insured person is driving and:

• is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
• is driving while unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
• fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason. "
  

That’s still fair enough EXCEPT for the second bullet point which seems legally unclear.  Specifically, who, or what mechanism, decides that the driver was ‘unfit’ ? 

It’s obvious what the intention is – if you, for instance, get drunk or take prescribed sleeping pills and then drive, you should take the consequences.   But it’s also possible to see circumstances where you are entirely innocent, perhaps shaken up, and some arbitrary PC or medic or whoever else attests that you looked ‘unfit’ --- see what I mean ?

 

Mark_d

In my view "unfit through drink or drugs" means (1) unfit to drive and also (2) driving has been impaired by drink/drugs.

Dash cam footage may be a good indicator in suggesting if you were unfit to drive.  As for the impairment - either you would have mentioned you'd taken a medication which causes drowsiness...or this would need a breathe/blood/urine test.

If someone suspected you were unfit to drive then they will likely have called police.  Witness statement plus police test (or refusal thereof) would be a clear indication of whether you would be covered under your insurance.

TELLIT01

If somebody is on prescription medicine they may have been advised either by their doctor, or in the leaflet with the medication, not to drive.  In that situation the insurer may refuse to pay out.

cw8825

Monanore said:

Car insurance, quite rightly, will not pay you out if you were under the influence of drink or drugs.    ( They do pay the 3rd party under road traffic law but that’s not what I want to discuss ).

However, the relevant wording in policy documents seems to fall into 2 types. I’ll use typical examples.

 Some say that a conviction following an accident is required :

 “ You’re not covered for :

• We won’t cover loss or damage caused by anyone who is convicted for driving while
  under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of the accident. “

 And some do not ( including a new clause in my policy ) :

 “ If an accident happens while any insured person is driving and:

• is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
• is driving while unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
• fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason. "
  

That’s still fair enough EXCEPT for the second bullet point which seems legally unclear.  Specifically, who, or what mechanism, decides that the driver was ‘unfit’ ? 

It’s obvious what the intention is – if you, for instance, get drunk or take prescribed sleeping pills and then drive, you should take the consequences.   But it’s also possible to see circumstances where you are entirely innocent, perhaps shaken up, and some arbitrary PC or medic or whoever else attests that you looked ‘unfit’ --- see what I mean ?

 

it will need to be medically proven about wether the driver was unfit factual not just opinion based

MikeJXE

It wont make any difference if you don’t drive after drinking or taking drugs 

DullGreyGuy

MikeJXE said:

It wont make any difference if you don’t drive after drinking or taking drugs 

Other than those of a certain age are likely to be taking prescription medications every day and the wording explicitly includes prescription medicines. So unless you are saying anyone with type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure or at elevated risk of heart disease shouldn't be driving then many will be driving after taking drugs.

TELLIT01

DullGreyGuy said:

MikeJXE said:

It wont make any difference if you don’t drive after drinking or taking drugs 

Other than those of a certain age are likely to be taking prescription medications every day and the wording explicitly includes prescription medicines. So unless you are saying anyone with type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure or at elevated risk of heart disease shouldn't be driving then many will be driving after taking drugs.

People of any age may be taking painkillers.

DullGreyGuy

TELLIT01 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

MikeJXE said:

It wont make any difference if you don’t drive after drinking or taking drugs 

Other than those of a certain age are likely to be taking prescription medications every day and the wording explicitly includes prescription medicines. So unless you are saying anyone with type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure or at elevated risk of heart disease shouldn't be driving then many will be driving after taking drugs.

People of any age may be taking painkillers.

People of any age may be taking some form of medication and equally there are some 90 year olds that never take anything but the propensity for routinely taking medicines goes up as you age and Mike was suggesting that if anyone takes medicines shouldn't drive which would have greatest impact on the older generations. Wasnt trying to imply you have to be 60 before you take any form of medicine.