insurance drink driving void? help

carolineckc

My car is in my name, and i have insurance for me and a named driver, the named drived crashed the car after drinking and the police where soon at the scene and he was taken breathalised and now is awaiting bloods but it looks like he was over the limit. My question is will my insurace still pay out? i'm really worried about this as i have little money

pinkpig08

Have you read the terms and conditions of your policy? I'm not sure but it may tell you in there.

real1314

last time I looked at my terms it said that drink driving means the policy is invalid, but for the liabilities under the road traffic act - so the third party stuff stands, but not the fully comp bit.

Steve1981

real1314 wrote: »

last time I looked at my terms it said that drink driving means the policy is invalid, but for the liabilities under the road traffic act - so the third party stuff stands, but not the fully comp bit.

this is also how I understand it to be.

Just a thought, as then 'technically' the car would become an uninsured loss, could OP not use legal serevices to persue the recovery against the named driver?

It could be argued that you cant persue someone covered by the same policy, but then on the otherhand the point would be thathtey 'arent' covered?

might be worth looking into, I would not let myself be left out of pocket because some associate had taken the liberty of using my car and whilst drunk.

Did you give him permission to use the car? (not in general sense) but in that did you know he had been drinking and allow him to use the car anyway? if thats the case the above would be a no goer anyway

silvercar

You can't win on the giving of permission.

If you gave permission; he crashed drunk, so you won't be covered.

If you didn't give permission then he may not be insured at all and would face further charges.

If you are going to use legal services to pursue him, wouldn't it be easier for him to agree to pay you?

Steve1981

silvercar wrote: »

You can't win on the giving of permission.

If you are going to use legal services to pursue him, wouldn't it be easier for him to agree to pay you?

agreements with friends for large sums of money often dont happen

malky39

and if you say you gave him permission you too could also get charged as you may have known that the driver had been drinking

chuckles1066

malky39 wrote: »

and if you say you gave him permission you too could also get charged as you may have known that the driver had been drinking

Giving permission doesn't come into it; if they're on the policy as a named driver, they don't need permission.

real1314's post is legally correct.

C_Ronaldo

Why did the OP let the named driver drive the car when they were drunk,