We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Hit by a drunk driver - insurance not valid?
Options
Sampong
Posts: 870 Forumite
Someone I know has had their car written off by a drunk driver. The offending party is insured by Tesco car insurance, and apparently they won't payout - obviously because drink driving would invalidate the insurance.
Does that sound correct?
I suppose the next step would be Civil action?
Does that sound correct?
I suppose the next step would be Civil action?
0
Comments
-
Someone I know has had their car written off by a drunk driver. The offending party is insured by Tesco car insurance, and apparently they won't payout - obviously because drink driving would invalidate the insurance.
Does that sound correct?
I suppose the next step would be Civil action?
Third party cover would still be valid. Someone is telling fibs.0 -
Any motor insurance policy sold in the UK must cover third party damage claims to the tune of £lots (think it is £20m). The drunk driver being drunk does not turn £20m into £0.
If Tesco are rejecting an innocent third party's claim then something fishy is going on. The drunk driver not being insured by Tesco would be the most likely reason but there are others.0 -
What if it was not the named driver driving the car? Would that be another one of the "fishy" reasons?0
-
-
opinions4u wrote: »If the policy names drivers and somebody not named is driving, then that policy doesn't cover them.
The driver may have their own insurance though.
Sounds messy.
As there is a policy on the car, the Insurer (Tesco) are obliged to pay third party claims under the RTA if the driver of the car is "identified" which it sounds like they were.0 -
Someone I know has had their car written off by a drunk driver. The offending party is insured by Tesco car insurance, and apparently they won't payout - obviously because drink driving would invalidate the insurance.
Does that sound correct?
I suppose the next step would be Civil action?
So they let a drunk driver drive their car and they crashed it? No wonder they wont pay out, someone's going to have to take action against the drunk driver, more to the point why the hell were they allowed to drive the car?0 -
Who have the Police identified as the owner of the car and was the person driving the car insured to drive said car?0
-
cardinalbiggles wrote: »So they let a drunk driver drive their car and they crashed it? No wonder they wont pay out, someone's going to have to take action against the drunk driver, more to the point why the hell were they allowed to drive the car?
The other drivers Insurers (Tescos) are liable under the Road Traffic Act 151 2 B
"2)Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either—
(a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or
(b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
It's not optional for Tesco as they have to pay valid claims providing the driver was identified eg arrested by the police or they stopped at the scene etc.0 -
If there is more to this, and tesco don't have any responsibility then your friend will be able to claim off the mib uninsured driver scheme.0
-
I'm struggling to get the full story to be honest as this all comes form a facebook discussion thread and I haven't had a chance to catch up/ask questions in person yet.
However it does seem that there is some difficulty in identifying the driver i.e; they won't admit it. However I would have surely thought if that were the case then the Police should be asking questions such as;
Were you, the owner of the car driving? "No"
Therefore was the car stolen? "No"
So who was driving the car then?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.6K Life & Family
- 248.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards