Accident while Drink Driving, Insurance refusing to pay

rocklord42

Hi all,

Mate had an accident, turned out he was drink driving, idiot.

Guards got him for it, single vehicle accident, convicted of drunk driving and lost the licence.

Car was a write off. Insurance fully comprehensive. Insurance now saying they refuse to pay out because driver was breaking law.

Mate still owes finance company €8,000 for the car, and he's minimum wage so that's a fair chunk of money.

I'm guessing that the insurance company is following their guidelines but that they are full of ****. I can't imagine that all those drivers who were speeding when they had their accidents are not going to have insurance company pay out, and they're breaking the law too. Also can't imagine an insurance company being let off the hook in a situation where an insured drink driver causes a huge third party loss.

Anybody got any clue as to how to approach this ? My mate is foreign so he tends to get the ****ty end of the stick most of the time but he's honest and (usually) responsible.

Thanks in advance,

Rocky

listermint

Check the Terms and Conditions of his policy and consult a solicitor.

rocklord42

The insurance company is quoting the Condition as follows:

"6. Care of Vehicles:
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the Insured vehicle against loss, damage or breakdown. The Insured Vehicle must also be maintained in an efficient and roadworthy condition."

Seems like a bit of a catch all pile of b-s.

Rocky

Anan1

I seem to remember some talk about Aviva introducing such a condition a while back? As listermint says, they can't do it unless it's in the t&cs which he signed up to.

GarIT

You would have to see his full policy to really have an opinion. It might have been in the contract it might not have been. The third party insurance applies no matter what but the contract could say that the 1st party doesn't if he was drunk or it might not.

Either way I think he definitely deserves it. Shouldn't have been endangering other peoples lives.

MugMugs

listermint wrote: »

Check the Terms and Conditions of his policy and consult a solicitor.

Don't bother with the solicitor. Like the law the insurer has your mate banged to rights. It a condition precedent to indemnity that he isn't drunk. Tell your mate to learn from his mistake and accept the consequences. Be grateful he didn't damage somebody else's car either as they'd be coming after him for those costs too or even worse, kill somebody.

OldmanMondeo

Your mate got caught and charged with drink driving, most speeders don't get charged. Hopefully no one was hurt due to your mate being a flute.

mickdw

Firstly, the insurers are bound to pay 3rd party claims regardless of actions of insured person so your argument re these other party claims are not relevant here.
I also know that the insurer can chase the insured person for any loses due to having to settle 3rd party claims in cases where they have reason not to pay out. Typical reasons not to pay might be a case of where lies were told when taking out policy.
I think they are playing hardball in this case. If he was marginally over the limit, he could argue that he was not knowingly breaking the law. My own opinion is that they should not pay out in the case of drink driving.

MugMugs

rocklord42 wrote: »

The insurance company is quoting the Condition as follows:

"6. Care of Vehicles:
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the Insured vehicle against loss, damage or breakdown. The Insured Vehicle must also be maintained in an efficient and roadworthy condition."

Seems like a bit of a catch all pile of b-s.

Rocky

How's that relevant to the driver being pissed?

Jimbob 83

Im just glad nobody got hurt, your friend is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks he is entitled to have his policy honoured

CiniO

I just checks my insurance conditions, and they would not pay if car war driven by someone who doesn't hold a licence, but it says nothing about driving under influence of alcohol, so I assume they would have to cover it. That's Allianz, but obviously every insurer has different rules.

MugMugs

mickdw wrote: »

I think they are playing hardball in this case. If he was marginally over the limit, he could argue that he was not knowingly breaking the law. My own opinion is that they should not pay out in the case of drink driving.

He was caught breaking the law and doing something explicitly set out by the insurer?! There's no hard ball. He broke the law got caught and is suffering as a result. The insurer gave fair warning.

Tigger

third party cover wouyld apply but yer mate will find that the insurance will fight and comprehensive claim if he was fgound to be drunk

karma tbh

Mikros

As others have said check your policy, I know mine has a clause that limits the cover to the minimum required by law, i.e. 3rd parties only, if drink or drugs are involved. If your mate has something similar he is sh*t out of luck...

9. Drink/Drugs Clause
Our liability will be restricted to provide only the minimum insurance cover as required by law, if as a result of any accident, injury, loss or damage, any person driving is convicted of any offence involving driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, contrary to the laws of the country in which that person is convicted.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Don't bother with the solicitor. Like the law the insurer has your mate banged to rights. It a condition precedent to indemnity that he isn't drunk.

What does this mean?:)

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Don't bother with the solicitor. Like the law the insurer has your mate banged to rights. It a condition precedent to indemnity that he isn't drunk.

What does this mean?:)

You must satisfy the condition stating you're not permitted to be done for being pissed before your insurer will indemnify you for all losses incurred.

slimjimmc

AXA is pretty clear on their T&Cs. They will not pay for your car if its driver is over the limit after an accident or even a previous conviction/prosecution for drink/drug driving. Not only that but you'll be liable for all other payouts too (e.g. fire brigade, replace street lamp/fencing, etc)
I'd be surprised if your mate's insurer doesn't have a similar clause.

(pdf)

General Exceptions
:
:
2 If an accident happens and:
a) as a result you and any insured person is convicted or has a prosecution
pending of an offence involving alcohol or drugs;
b) you or any insured person is driving while unfit to do so due to alcohol or
drugs; or
c) you or any insured person is driving after drinking alcohol and, three hours
after the accident, the amount of alcohol in the breath, blood or urine is
above the legal limit for driving.
Then
i) The cover provided in section 1 of the policy for loss of or damage to the
Insured vehicle will not apply; and
ii) you or any person driving must repay all the amounts we have paid to
cover any claims arising from the accident

Anan1

From memory, some German insurers had a clause when I lived there that >130km/h on the Autobahn meant third party cover only.

wyndham

This is hilarious and the stupidest thread I've seen in a while. Your mate gets pissed and drives his car into a .... what did he hit by the way? And then expects somebody else to pay for it?

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

From memory, some German insurers had a clause when I lived there that >130km/h on the Autobahn meant third party cover only.

Makes sense but how would they prove speed without intense forensic examination?

Johntegr

I've been with Quinn & Axa and now Liberty. On all my policies it's stated that if I was found to be DUI and had an accident, they wont pay out.

This doesn't even mean over the legal limits. It was worded that if I were found to have ANY amount of alcohol or even prescription medicines in my system that advise on the label not to drive etc, then they wouldn't pay out in event of a claim.

Haven't fully read through my Liberty policy yet but I'm sure it's most likely worded same as my Quinn policy.

MugMugs

Johntegr wrote: »

I've been with Quinn & Axa and now Liberty. On all my policies it's stated that if I was found to be DUI and had an accident, they wont pay out.

This doesn't even mean over the legal limits. It was worded that if I were found to have ANY amount of alcohol or even prescription medicines in my system that advise on the label not to drive etc, then they wouldn't pay out in event of a claim.

Haven't fully read through my Liberty policy yet but I'm sure it's most likely worded same as my Quinn policy.

Being under the legal limit and being declined from making a Comp claim wouldn't stand up in court. And I know at least two of those policies don't discriminate for people under the limit. .

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

From memory, some German insurers had a clause when I lived there that >130km/h on the Autobahn meant third party cover only.

So when it comes to comparing in Poland all policies cover you with two exceptions.
1. Driver didn't have a valid licence.
2. Driver was under influence of alcohol or drugs.
3. Driver caused an accident or loss with purpose.


In above cases, your car won't be covered, and any damage to third parties will be paid by insurer, but then recovered from you up to the last cent.

But except from those three, insurers are not allowed to refuse to pay for the claim for any other reason really.

Johntegr

MugMugs wrote: »

Being under the legal limit and being declined from making a Comp claim wouldn't stand up in court. And I know at least two of those policies don't discriminate for people under the limit. .

It seems to be that way alright. Courts usually over rule insurance companies policies when it hasn't conflicted with the law.

It's like when they try to void people's insurance in event of an accident when the assessor comes out and notices the alloys are a different colour than factory.

I've never heard of Axa winning a case, yet they still try their arm in court and end up being told to pay out and cover all the legal costs when they lose.

Atlantic Dawn

It's actually good when something like this happens, your mate tells others and people learn the harsh lessons of life and spread the good word

teednab-el

rocklord42 wrote: »

Hi all,

Mate had an accident, turned out he was drink driving, idiot.

Guards got him for it, single vehicle accident, convicted of drunk driving and lost the licence.

Car was a write off. Insurance fully comprehensive. Insurance now saying they refuse to pay out because driver was breaking law.

Mate still owes finance company €8,000 for the car, and he's minimum wage so that's a fair chunk of money.

I'm guessing that the insurance company is following their guidelines but that they are full of ****. I can't imagine that all those drivers who were speeding when they had their accidents are not going to have insurance company pay out, and they're breaking the law too. Also can't imagine an insurance company being let off the hook in a situation where an insured drink driver causes a huge third party loss.

Anybody got any clue as to how to approach this ? My mate is foreign so he tends to get the ****ty end of the stick most of the time but he's honest and (usually) responsible.

Thanks in advance,

Rocky

No pity for your friend and he deserves everything harsh he gets. Only way he will learn for been such an ignorant and daft person. He could have killed some innocent road user with his drunken antics. Hopefully he can come up with all the money from his savings and stop screwing the country over with more than it is at present. He needs to learn his lesson with a brutal penalty big time.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Makes sense but how would they prove speed without intense forensic examination?

No idea, TBH.

heathersonline

Johntegr wrote: »

I've been with Quinn & Axa and now Liberty. On all my policies it's stated that if I was found to be DUI and had an accident, they wont pay out.

This doesn't even mean over the legal limits. It was worded that if I were found to have ANY amount of alcohol or even prescription medicines in my system that advise on the label not to drive etc, then they wouldn't pay out in event of a claim.

Haven't fully read through my Liberty policy yet but I'm sure it's most likely worded same as my Quinn policy.

Would the cops even record blood alcohol levels if you passed the breathalyser?

tuxy

heathersonline wrote: »

Would the cops even record blood alcohol levels if you passed the breathalyser?

No, they would need to call a doctor for blood levels. No way they would do that if you had a low specimen of alcohol in your breath.

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's actually good when something like this happens, your mate tells others and people learn the harsh lessons of life and spread the good word

Funny you should say that, a friend of mine is off the road for the last 5 years, he has two more to go, only this evening we were chatting away and he says 'twas the best thing that ever happened to him. He's in a much better place now than he was then and thankfully no one was hurt on any of his trips under the influence.

golondrinas

Lucky he is not in Italy or he would be deported. Pity we can,t deport him from here.

Tilikum

Mikros wrote: »

As others have said check your policy, I know mine has a clause that limits the cover to the minimum required by law, i.e. 3rd parties only, if drink or drugs are involved. If your mate has something similar he is sh*t out of luck...

9. Drink/Drugs Clause
Our liability will be restricted to provide only the minimum insurance cover as required by law, if as a result of any accident, injury, loss or damage, any person driving is convicted of any offence involving driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, contrary to the laws of the country in which that person is convicted.

I'm sorry Ive never been in an accident so I don't know what that means. Does that mean if I crashed into someone whilst over the limit (then got convicted) they would only pay out for the damages to the person I hit? Nothing for my own car?

biko

Please start a new thread with your question.