[Closed] Car Insurance Claim. Drink driver versus parked car. Advice Req.

AFAIK, if he's an "uninsured driver" (and that sounds like hogwash to me), the Motorist Insurance Bureau should pick up the tab.

Really though, she should be playing merry hell with her insurance company to chase it up properly.

I've got my insurance docs here and have just read through the exclusions - no mention at all of drink driving - though it does say it won't pay for "any person who is breaking the terms of their driving licence" - that may cover that, though I wouldn't have thought it meant drink driving, otherwise it would presumably exclude all other breaking of the law whilst driving? I agree with your understanding about the liability of the other insurance company in general - though I'm not an expert either - they are still liable, but may be able to reclaim costs from the driver depending on the wording of the policy.

If there was enough force to actually bend a wheel then the suspension and mounts are probably affected too.

Does seem like an insurance cop out. Hope you find a better solution.

Just because the driver has made himself uninsured, doesn't mean he isn't liable for the damage. If she is out of pocket from lost no claims/excesses etc, or it isn't covered by the bureau, the next route would be small claims directly against the driver.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/car-insurance-myths/ which should be reasonably authoritative suggests that insurance companies must meet 3rd party claims under the RTA.

I am currently trying to find the correct legislation under the road traffic act to point her towards so she has the leverage to force her insurance company to pursue a claim against the drink drivers insurance company.

i believe the insurance company mean " it will cost us too much to pursue so its easier to make you pay"

not admiral is it ?

Here is what my policy says:

"If the driver involved in an incident is unfit to
drive through drink or drugs or their alcohol
blood level proportion is over the legal limit or is
charged with or convicted of failure to supply a
specimen when requested by the police or other
official body, our liability will be limited to that
required by the RTA. This means that the vehicle
will not be covered and we may seek to recover
any costs paid to any third parties from you or
the driver of your vehicle."

If the other driver actually had a policy of insurance they will pay up (eventually). It may be that they have checked the MID and there is no policy in place?

[i]Only info I have. [/i]

Unless she gets you to speak to her Insurance Company directly you'll only ever have her 'words'..., just point her back to Google.

Yes, sorry I understand it is difficult to comment constructively with limited information.

I a merely trying to find out the legal position with regards to the requirements of an insurer to cover third party costs in the event that the driver they insure is a drink driver.

My policy definitely doesn't have that wording, poly, though we've already established it is different in some ways 😉

[quote=poly ]If the other driver actually had a policy of insurance they will pay up (eventually). It may be that they have checked the MID and there is no policy in place?

Seems the only likely possibility - apart from the more likely ones that they can't be bothered, somebody doesn't know what they're talking about, or that it's been lost in translation.

[quote=one_happy_hippy ]I a merely trying to find out the legal position with regards to the requirements of an insurer to cover third party costs in the event that the driver they insure is a drink driver.

I think we've established beyond reasonable doubt that they're legally obliged to still cover the costs of any claim covered by the RTA - which does include cover for damage to property nowadays AFAIK (poly?)

I was a claims bod at the first insurer to introduce a drink drive exclusion, back in the early 90s. Such fun pursuing the drunk driver for our outlay in these cases.

At one time you needed to get a judgement against the driver before the insurers would step in, not sure if common sense has now prevailed to keep costs down. RTA liability used to only be for death and injury but I [i]think[/i] that got extended to damage as well....managed to get out of that game just as the compensation culture started to reach mainland GB, thank God.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/145

the policy— must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or [b]damage to property[/b] caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] in Great Britain

If there is a drink-drive exclusion, that's between the drink-driver and their insurer: the insurer is still obliged to pay out.

From past knowledge this is black and white and has been written into policies for decades.

A vehicle is insured and regardless of the drivers intoxication THIRD PARTY LIABILITY cannot be denied to an injured or damaged third party. The liable insurer DOES HAVE THE OPTION to try to recover this money from the drunk driver if they can but they can't deny liability on the basis of the drunk driver.

Has anyone posted a policy wording that specifically excludes this. The one I read above said it would revert to RTA liability which is basic third party cover which still covers this type of incident

[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]At one time you needed to get a judgement against the driver before the insurers would step in, not sure if common sense has now prevailed to keep costs down.

A judgement against the driver in what sense? That the driver caused the damage, or that the driver was drunk?

I'm kind of confused by this and why it was ever needed, when as far as the 3rd party's relationship with the insurance company is concerned it makes no difference at all what state the driver was in!

The above doesn't account for lazy arsed insurance companies not bothering chasing the other parties ins co to recover costs.

I would suggest a call to her insurance stating they have the other parties ins details, the police have confirmed the person was drink driving and it's a clear cut incident. If they do not reinstate all ncb and recover costs due to their lack of effort you want them to provide you with how to report this to the insurance ombudsman. (The legally have to give you these details). See how they respond

Your friend needs to raise hell and refuse to accept this. Maybe citizens advice or the governing body of insurance companies need talking to.

It doesn't make any difference. An insurer can't exclude cover due to intoxication so they can't ask for proof of intoxication to pay out to a third party unless they somehow think if the driver can prove they weren't drunk it somehow meant they weren't liable for hitting a parked car.. Considering it's pretty clear cut, tell em to jump if they say they need to wait and ask for ombudsman details

You used to need a judgement for both.

The drink driving conviction to confirm that the policy exclusion applied.

The judgement on the civil case for the accident to confirm the damages awarded. We had a couple of policyholders who paid the claim directly themselves to keep their costs down - obviously relatively minor values. Technically the insurers RTA obligation was there to pay any damages award that the responsible driver didn't pay, and we had no legal right to pursue the driver for recovery unless a judgement had been obtained.

Common sense prevailed and we would try and get the drivers agreement to let us negotiate the settlement and claim it back to speed things up and keep the cost down.

I'm a good 10 years away from it now do it will probably all have changed now anyway.

The driver's insurers must still pay third party liabilities, it's only his own loss that's not covered if he was drink driving (depending on the T&Cs I suppose). This is why the police can't do every drink driver for driving without insurance too - the third party liabilities are still covered. Has there perhaps been a miscommunication somewhere?

Thanks all for the confirmation. I is what I suspected with regards to the drink drivers insurers liability.

I suspect it was insurance company trying to find easiest / cheapest route. She is somewhat shy / timid at the best of times so I just need to make sure she is armed with the correct information so she can fight her corner.

aracer - I think we agree - and its certainly possible that it has been lost in translation, e.g. "We will pay out now and then pursue the other insurer later, after any criminal prosecution of concluded [which could be 12 months from now]". Or the other time I believe insurers become particularly ineffective is if you are both with the same insurer - essentially it is a claim against themselves.

The advice on this thread is probably of limited use to your friend in America.

spam. reported

I wondered, but couldn't be arsed reading the link 🙂