[minicooper1987]

I was involved in a car accident on 13/11/2009 during which my tyre blew out causing the car to spin, during which i hit another vehicle (and allegedly another however i am arguing this). I also broke my arm in the accident which is still in plaster and requires surgery.

I was over the limit for drinking at the time (I take full responsibility for my actions - I have been banned and fined etc - please note that i was one glass of wine over the limit (i know this is not excusable but i wanted to mention) and i have no previous points or convistion in my 5 years of driving)
I was advised by Elephant that they would not cover the cost of MY vehicle which i can fully understand (my vehicle has been written off). However, last week (2 months after the accident) I received notification that 2 vehicles are claiming against me for damages.

I was advised by Elephant on 2 occasions during the week after my accident that if a 3rd party claim is to be made against me that they WOULD cover the costs. However, when the claims have been put through this week I have been advised that I will be required to cover ALL COSTS.

I have been advised today that the cost of one of the claims (of which the work has ALREADY been carried out) will be approx £6000. (£5,500 damages and £500 courtesy car - even thought they took 2 months to claim and its a company car?)

I am looking for any advice available on this situation as I can appreciate my insurance being void on my vehicle, but I hoped that i would have 3rd party cover?
my elephant policy states that due to the circumstances no cover will be provided and that instead their liability will be restricted to meeting their obligations as required by thr Road Traffic Act.

Does anybody have any information in relation to this?

Thankyou for your time

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Kind regards

Charlotte

(please note that a am the driver not the pedestrian but this is my first time on here)

[Rolebama]

I think it may be worth your while telephoning the Financial Ombudsman. They can generally give advice there and then, and I think they will be able to clarify for you. 0845 080 1800.

[Snowball]

Regardless of circumstances causing the insurers to refuse cover on your own vehicle, providing your insurance was otherwise valid I would have expected third party liabilities to have been covered.
I say this because of the question of how third parties stand when the owner of the vehicle at fault has no financial way of paying out the damage sustained.
Drink-driving isn't the only offence capable of being classed in this manner, so is there a loophole that could drop any errant driver in the pooh for a whole string of driving misdemeanours?

[Loony]

Your insurance company will alwys cover third party claims.However they can in the event of things like drink driving then claim those costs back from you.
This seems to be what is happening here and you are liable for these costs.

[mooders]

hi how did this go as my husband has had the same problem except out bill is 19,000 and i realy dont know what to do as he has left me to sort it out who did you contact and did you get any help or did you have to pay in the end louise

[Loony]

Originally Posted by mooders

hi how did this go as my husband has had the same problem except out bill is 19,000 and i realy dont know what to do as he has left me to sort it out who did you contact and did you get any help or did you have to pay in the end louise

What have the insurance company said.If they have given you a bill and told you they want the money then you owe them the money its that simple really.
They will probably take legal action against you if you dont pay up.

[mooders]

they asked us if it was ok for them to act on our behalf and said they would keep in contact and wouldnt pay anything untill we agreed it was fair but we never heard from them foe a year and when we finaly did it was a letter saying they had paid out 19,353 and we were bound to pay them back

[smudger]

Quote.."(please note that a am the driver not the pedestrian but this is my first time on here)"

The term "pedestrian" is only a site thing, where your status moves up as you enter new posts.;)

[Rolebama]

I am never sure of these kinds of threads. I do not condone drink-driving, (I have had two cars written off by drunk drivers), but neither do I condone the insurance companies who expect to be paid back for damage caused*. Insurers take high premiums from young drivers because they pose a high risk of being involved in a collisiion, usually with injury payouts as well. I am not sure I believe that the risk of drink driving is not included in the risk factor by insurers, and because of this, I am not sure why they should be entitlted to reimbursement.
*I certainly do not believe that drink is the 100% cause of 100% of collisions involving drink driving. I agree that drink can cloud decision-making and relfex actions, but I do think it wrong that drink drivers are automatically held 100% responsible, negating further investigation.

[smudger]

I saw a documentary a while ago where they said that tests would soon be available to test drivers for "drugs", but then heard no more about that?:confused:

[Loony]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I am never sure of these kinds of threads. I do not condone drink-driving, (I have had two cars written off by drunk drivers), but neither do I condone the insurance companies who expect to be paid back for damage caused*. Insurers take high premiums from young drivers because they pose a high risk of being involved in a collisiion, usually with injury payouts as well. I am not sure I believe that the risk of drink driving is not included in the risk factor by insurers, and because of this, I am not sure why they should be entitlted to reimbursement.
*I certainly do not believe that drink is the 100% cause of 100% of collisions involving drink driving. I agree that drink can cloud decision-making and relfex actions, but I do think it wrong that drink drivers are automatically held 100% responsible, negating further investigation.

Firstly sorry if it seems i am disagreeing but......

The thing is the insurance company will charge you a premium based on the risk you are ie car,age area you live in and previous claims.
They do not budget on you going out and getting drunk then driving home.This is an illegal act and also one that normally results in expensive claims being made.
If they were to budget on you drink driving surely you would all be paying £2000 a year(lets say) instead of £300, to cover the people that do crash while over the limit.

You can bet the driver never said its a standard car and i have 4 years ncb oh and by the way i will be drink driving at some point, and in return you can bet the insurance company never charged him £18000 for 1 years insurance.

I do not want my insurance premium to rise to cover drink drivers who have cost the insurance company money.
Therefore i am fully for the insurance company suing the driver to reclaim their costs in full,rather than them pay out and we all pay more in return.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Loony

What have the insurance company said.If they have given you a bill and told you they want the money then you owe them the money its that simple really.
They will probably take legal action against you if you dont pay up.

Unless another person can be proven to be aiding and abetting (e.g., wiilingly accompanying the drunken driver in his behaviour), then only the driver can be liable for repayment of T.P. costs. Other family members cannot held responsible for the driver's actions, and funds/possessions that can be arguably said not to owned by the driver cannot be taken

Originally Posted by Loony

Firstly sorry if it seems i am disagreeing but......

The thing is the insurance company will charge you a premium based on the risk you are ie car,age area you live in and previous claims.
They do not budget on you going out and getting drunk then driving home.This is an illegal act and also one that normally results in expensive claims being made.
If they were to budget on you drink driving surely you would all be paying £2000 a year(lets say) instead of £300, to cover the people that do crash while over the limit.

You can bet the driver never said its a standard car and i have 4 years ncb oh and by the way i will be drink driving at some point, and in return you can bet the insurance company never charged him £18000 for 1 years insurance.

I do not want my insurance premium to rise to cover drink drivers who have cost the insurance company money.
Therefore i am fully for the insurance company suing the driver to reclaim their costs in full,rather than them pay out and we all pay more in return.

I don't think it would be lawful for any insurance company to offer a premium that catered for drunken driving, when being in that state is already an offence punishable in law. It would be akin to insurers saying, "if you can afford it, we'll make it easier for you to break the law".

[Loony]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I don't think it would be lawful for any insurance company to offer a premium that catered for drunken driving, when being in that state is already an offence punishable in law. It would be akin to insurers saying, "if you can afford it, we'll make it easier for you to break the law".

Hi snowball.
You are missing my point,i was not saying that.What i mean is the insurance company do not budget for a driver to go drink driving or to race on the public roads and crash.So when they do this it is right that they chase the driver for the costs.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Loony

Hi snowball.
You are missing my point,i was not saying that.What i mean is the insurance company do not budget for a driver to go drink driving or to race on the public roads and crash.So when they do this it is right that they chase the driver for the costs.

Hi, Loony. I was only replying to your comment that you don't want insurers to budget to cover drink driving; and I agree with you. however, where T.P. (not passengers)are concerned, these people haven't contributed to the driver's actions, but they have provided the cover or that driver to be on the road. If, in the name of humanity, it is necessary to decide on a 'losing innocent', then it is the insurer who must lose out.

Regarding reclaiming any T.P. compensation, yes, it's the driver who should be chased for that finance; but how far do you go to put harship on an innocent family member?
I have met drivers who obviously exceed the alcohol limit, and don't give a fig about their wives' opinions. Probably get a wallop if they made objecting remarks.

[wagolynn]

It is in the Elephant terms and conditions, they will provide the cover required of the road traffic act but they retain the right to recover their costs from the policyholder where the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs. So the good news is minicooper1987 was not driving without insurance, the bad news is they have the right to recover the money. One option would be to let them go to court for the money and the court should arbitrate in getting a realistic payment schedule.
Aha the virtues of alcohol...

[Rolebama]

I am sorry not to have been clearer in my earlier post, but it seems to me that the majority of collisions must be caused by someone breaking the law. This is underwritten in insurance premiums, and I don't think that there can be differentiation by insurers as to which laws are broken. If a motorist is taken to Court and found guilty of an offence it makes it easier for insurers to point the finger of causality, and it is usually held by the Courts that the 'offender's' actions were deliberate. They are not asked to reimburse insurers, so, politically correct or not, I do not see why a person convicted of drink driving should have to reimburse.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I am sorry not to have been clearer in my earlier post, but it seems to me that the majority of collisions must be caused by someone breaking the law. This is underwritten in insurance premiums, and I don't think that there can be differentiation by insurers as to which laws are broken. If a motorist is taken to Court and found guilty of an offence it makes it easier for insurers to point the finger of causality, and it is usually held by the Courts that the 'offender's' actions were deliberate. They are not asked to reimburse insurers, so, politically correct or not, I do not see why a person convicted of drink driving should have to reimburse.

Because that is what they signed up to when they took out the insurance...

[Snowball]

In general, I have to agree with wagolynn on this. Insurance does not give a driver carte blanche to consider the policy as giving immunity to all his/her actions. In the case of drunken driving, no driver can claim they did not know it was an offence, and the offence is a deliberate one. So it is reasonable for the insurer to sue the driver for reimbursement; which is morally more acceptable than denying compensation to innocent third parties.
My only concern is for any family members of the driver suffering resultant hardship; particularly where they are just as innocent.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball,
We have talked about this previously – the last person to know they are approaching or over the limit is the drunk driver, this is the built in trap. Because of the alcohol, the drinker losses inhibitions, and control, (which is why he/she was drinking anyway, I think) how can a person in that state make a judgment? It would be interesting to see a case pushed through court to test that as a defence. When I lived in Eire, ‘having drink taken’ was a common defence to many traffic offences!

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Hi Snowball,
We have talked about this previously – the last person to know they are approaching or over the limit is the drunk driver, this is the built in trap. Because of the alcohol, the drinker losses inhibitions, and control, (which is why he/she was drinking anyway, I think) how can a person in that state make a judgment? It would be interesting to see a case pushed through court to test that as a defence. When I lived in Eire, ‘having drink taken’ was a common defence to many traffic offences!

Hi, wagolynn. Am I correct in thinking that such a court test might be a means of obtaining a 'not guilty' result?
Drunken driving has been proven to be the cause of many serious/fatal accidents, so I for one believe that discouragement is vital. If any legal proceedings resulted in the insurance companies losing out to obviously drunk drivers, and/or such drivers getting away without penalty, I am certain that the government and insurance companies would close the loophole; probably by introducing a zero alcohol limit, which many lobby groups are calling for.

[Loony]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

It is in the Elephant terms and conditions, they will provide the cover required of the road traffic act but they retain the right to recover their costs from the policyholder where the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs. So the good news is minicooper1987 was not driving without insurance

Just to make it clear.
It does not matter what is in the terms and conditions.The insurance company can not discard the third party rights under a clause in the road traffic act.
This means that third parties will always get paid out as the driver of the offending vehicle will always remain insured.However the insurance company can go after the driver to reclaim their costs.

[Loony]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

the last person to know they are approaching or over the limit is the drunk driver, this is the built in trap. Because of the alcohol, the drinker losses inhibitions, and control, (which is why he/she was drinking anyway, I think) how can a person in that state make a judgment? It would be interesting to see a case pushed through court to test that as a defence.

It would never go to court as a defence.The law is very clear on the issue.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball & Loony,
I think the defence would/could be the crime (drunken driving) was committed while the balance of the mind was disturbed, it is a defence, or at least acceptable as mitigating circumstances in say murder cases. I am sure the loophole would be closed if such a case were successful. I am not saying this is or should be so just wondering if it has been tried. An absolute ban would make sense but it measuring zero alcohol is impractical.

[Rolebama]

When I had my collison two years ago, and I was fighting the claim against me, he alleged that I had deliberately rammed him. I queried with my insurer as to whether I was insured 'to drive around ramming people'. Their answer was a very definite yes. I phoned them this morning, with relevance to this thread, and asked if they paid out for my deliberately ramming someone, would they chase me for reimbursement. Their answer was no they would not require reimbursement.

[smudger]

Quote.." Their answer was no they would not require reimbursement."

Aye! but I bet your premium would shoot right up when it came up for renewal:(

[Rolebama]

Smudger, My insurance renewal is in March, and collision took place in August. My premium for the March before the collision was £125. During the time of the claim, my renewal premium was for £250, because I forfeited 2yrs NCB. I queried this and it was reduced to £180. The claim was sorted out just before my next renewal, when my NCB was reinstated, and I received a cheque for £81 overpayment. This was because the usual premium for that year would have been £99.