Insurance renewal.

[Alex321]

Tell your daughter that if she has any alcohol whatsoever in her system in the event of an accident, Hastings will refuse her claim. The same is true with Admiral.
They will then also cancel the policy leaving that as something to be declared on any insurance application for ever more.
Honestly, they are not worth being insured with.

They would be acting illegally if they did that.

They CANNOT refuse third party claims on that basis (though if the policy document says so, they MAY be able to attempt to then recover the costs from her - if she is over the limit, not if "any" alcohol - not that they would know if it isn't reported to the police, only required if there is injury).

And if she has comprehensive cover, they can only refuse for damage to her vehicle or injury to her if it is specifically excluded in the policy. Which it isn't with my Admiral policy (Actually Diamond brand, but they are Admiral really).

 

[Drago]

She could be drunk as a skunk, off her head on goofballs, and be caught eating a dead Frenchman at the time and none of that can lawfully negate her insurance with respect to third party risk. However,they could well refuse to pay on her own losses.

Then only way to negate insurance cover is to drive otherwise in accordance with a licence, ie, drive without the correct licence for the type of vehicle - it's not possible to hold a valid policy, even if correctly bought and paid for, if you don't have a licence or are banned from driving.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Sorry, yes they legally have to repay the 3rd party claim, but they will refuse the policyholder's claim for costs to their own vehicle etc. , and come after them for any expenses they incur.

 

[Drago]

...and come after them for any expenses they incur.

No they won't.

 

[Alex321]

Sorry, yes they legally have to repay the 3rd party claim, but they will refuse the policyholder's claim for costs to their own vehicle etc. , and come after them for any expenses they incur.

Only if the policy wording explicitly says so.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Only if the policy wording explicitly says so.

Which I believe Hastings and Admiral policies do. All my comments have been in relation to those two companies and their practices.
Companies that follow the ABI codes do not act in the same way.

 

[Drago]

Nonsense.

Perhaps you could explain how an insurer would know if someone had alcohol in their system if it was insufficient for them to be arrested? Who is going to tell them? Carlsberg? The alcohol fairies?

 

[Alex321]

Which I believe Hastings and Admiral policies do. All my comments have been in relation to those two companies and their practices.
Companies that follow the ABI codes do not act in the same way.

As I said above, my Diamond (Admiral) policy doesn't.

And I've just had the renewal notice through, so checked the policy wording.

I'v just looked up the most basic Hastings insurance policy wording. They do exclude cover when the driver is driing illegally according to the drink or drug driving laws. But that does NOT mean "if they have any alcohol in their blood". It means if they have enough to be above the legal limit for driving.
The actual wording is:
Used whilst the driver is acting in contravention of the laws (in the country where the incident happens) relating to:
• The use of a hand-held mobile phone or similar hand-held device while driving
• The use of the car/s while unfit through alcohol, drugs, medications or other substances, whether prescribed or not (and in this context the failure to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason shall be deemed to amount to such use)

There is no mention of alcohol anywhere in my Admiral policy.

 

[icowden]

Perhaps you could explain how an insurer would know if someone had alcohol in their system if it was insufficient for them to be arrested? Who is going to tell them? Carlsberg? The alcohol fairies?

I'm liking the idea of the alcohol fairies. I'm picturing a drunk Tinkerbelle crashing into trees.

I can put this one to bed though:

This is the wording from the actual Hastings Policy under exclusions:

Your policy will not provide cover for any injury, loss, damage or liability that is incurred by any person using your car while your car is being:
Used whilst the driver is acting in contravention of the laws (in the country where the incident happens) relating to:
• The use of a hand-held mobile phone or similar hand-held device while driving
• The use of the car/s while unfit through alcohol, drugs, medications or other substances, whether prescribed or not (and in this context the failure to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason shall be deemed to amount to such use)

So in other words, if you are found to be drunk driving then forget about cover for the accident you were in.

Happily, neither of my kids drink or have even considered drinking. Just not interested. There was a division of friendship groups when my oldest got to sixth form, with one group going down the boys, alcohol, vaping etc route and the other group sticking to nice days out, picnics and making tik-tok dances. I have the teens coming round this evening to socialise and make easter cakes. Very hard core.

 

[Dorset Boy]

The use of the car/s while unfit through alcohol,
Exactly, they do not state a limit, and do not use the legal limit either. So you get breathalised at the side of the road, which is an idicative test only. If that suggests you are positive, it does not matter if you are then under the limit when tested on the official machines at a police station. Admiral and Hastings will not pay out for your losses.
It is up to Admiral and Hastings to interpret their definition, and they do not define what unfit means anywhere in their wordings.

We sadly experienced that scenario last year.

The ABI definition states you must be over the legal limit for them to not cover your losses. I suggest sticking to insurers who use the ABI definition.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Nonsense.

Perhaps you could explain how an insurer would know if someone had alcohol in their system if it was insufficient for them to be arrested? Who is going to tell them? Carlsberg? The alcohol fairies?

Never heard of people being breathalized at the roadside following an accident? And then the insurer asking for the result of that test, even if you are under?

 

[vickster]

Our car insurance renewal (Tesco I think) was cheaper this year than last year. We then went on comparison sites and could not find a cheaper deal than the renewal quote. That's the first time that has happened for many years

Tesco quote was at least 50% more than the one I have from Aviva and that's with so called 'clubcard discount'

 

[CXRAndy]

Shop around almost yearly, because there often seems no rhyme or reason why prices jump up compared to last year. My car premium had increased £300 from last year. Went to another insurer came down £400, Compared to last year's premium it was still £100 cheaper by moving

 

[Alex321]

The use of the car/s while unfit through alcohol,
Exactly, they do not state a limit, and do not use the legal limit either.

False.

They specifically state that it is if you are breaching the local laws by being unfit to drive though alcohol. Which means it is the legal limit wherever you are at the time of the accident.

So you get breathalised at the side of the road, which is an idicative test only. If that suggests you are positive, it does not matter if you are then under the limit when tested on the official machines at a police station. Admiral and Hastings will not pay out for your losses.

False again.

It is the official results that matter.

It is up to Admiral and Hastings to interpret their definition, and they do not define what unfit means anywhere in their wordings.

False.

They quite specifically say "Used whilst the driver is acting in contravention of the laws (in the country where the incident happens) relating to:"

If you are within the laws, then that exclusion does not apply.

We sadly experienced that scenario last year.

The ABI definition states you must be over the legal limit for them to not cover your losses. I suggest sticking to insurers who use the ABI definition.

Which certainly includes both Admiral and Hastings.

Not that Admiral even mention alcohol in their policy document, so not sure why you keep including them.

 

[Alex321]

Never heard of people being breathalized at the roadside following an accident? And then the insurer asking for the result of that test, even if you are under?

Nope. THey have no right to ask for that, and nor do te police have any right to give them the information - though the roadside breathalyser is just a pass/fail anyhow, there is no "reading", that comes from the later full test at the station.