Car Insurance Validity

[shimewaza]

My girlfriend had a car accident, her car was badly damaged, no other cars or people involved. She was breathalised and was just over the limit. Will she still be able to claim on her car insurance for her vehicle?

[danchip]

no her insurance will be void

[redcrx]

id be amazed if she could.

[gouldc]

It depends who the insurer is - some specifically state in the policy conditions that any accident that occurs as a result of the driver being under the influence of drink or drugs will not be covered (apart from third party risks as per the minimum requirement under the law), whereas other insurers will actually cover it.

It's not a simple black and white case of yes or no.

The company I currently work for will not cover you, but the company I previously worked for would.

Reqad the policy book, or alternatively ask the insurers - pointless lying or hiding the fact as inevitably the police contact us to obtain details of the policy and grass the drive rup anyway.

If you lie and it would have been covered, we would then throw your claim our for providing misleading information (fraud), which means we add you to a data base that zeroes your credit rating for 13 months, and you have a permanent marker on it too (you won;t be able to get mortgages, phone contracts - anything that requires a credit check basically).

[shimewaza]

She has GAP insurance also as the vehicle was bought from new. likely it's a write-off now, would GAP likely pay-out. Her car insurance has an exclusion in the policy handbook.

[R1Geezer]

Insurance will not be "void", i.e. she will not be prosecuted for no insurance. Third party risks are still covered. However they will almost certainly not payout as she was driving illegally and may well recover costs from her if they have to pay out for road furniture etc.

[gouldc]

If the insurance has an exclusion, then she won't get a payout on the car.

As the insurer won't pay out, the GAP insurers won't pay out either, as they pay the difference (if any) between what the insurers value the car at, and what the outstanding finance is.

[flip_flop]

If there is a 'drink and drugs' clause, only third party liabilities will be covered.

If there is not, then the own damage will be covered.

Simple as that.

Geezer's statement is wrong - using his analogy, any accident that occurred above the speed limit wouldn't be covered either.

[R1Geezer]

sorry flip flop what are you on about. I said that insurance is NOTVOID.

Danchip said it was void.

Insurers will use any irregularity to reduce what they pay so if you crash at 40 in a 30 they will reduce what you get, simple as that.

[R1Geezer]

It's question of degree. I'm not saying any illigallity will reduce the payout to 0, I'm saying that in all probability DD will wipe it out but a small offence would only reduce it a bit.

[flip_flop]

Sorry mate, you are wrong.

Unless there is a specific 'drink and drugs' clause, they are contractually obliged to pay own damage.

They will not reduce an own damage payment for speeding.

[R1Geezer]

Ok so on that basis I can get rat ar5ed and drive my Bugatti veyron at 250mph into whatever and they'd pay me out as if I was sober doing 15mph past a school! Just seems a little bit unlikely to me and in my experience the Insurers use anything remotely iffy to reduce or not pay at all.

[gouldc]

R1 geezer, in that scenario, you would limkely be charged not only with drink drivbing, but also dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving is defined as a deliberate act (ie you are driving in the knowledge that your manner/speed is dangerous). and as such would not likely be covered by your insurance.

Drink dirving, as covered by myself and flip flop is not necessarily reason enough to refuse a claim.

I don;t know how many ''I was only driving at 30mph when the deer ran out'' claims I see, when it is blatantly obviouss that the ****** was doing in excess of 60mph - people lie, we know it, it is not something we can refuse a claim on, nor can we reduce the amount we pay for it - this is a similar attitude to ''refuse the first offer'' - urban myth.

Each insurance policy contains different terms and conditions from insurer to insurer. Some insurers will not cover you if your car is stolen by a family member, some will cover you if you crash your car pi55ed. On the flip side, other insurers will cover exactly the opposite, both, or neither of the above scenarios.

I have never encountered a case in all my time dealing with total loss and fraud claims whereby we have sanctioned a reduced offer due to excessive speeding, talking on a mobile, etc - the ombudsman would not accept that behaviour, and as such our claims department would not do that.

The only likelyhood of a reduced settlement is whereby undisclosed convictions or claims mean we have to retrospectively increase the premium , or if the condition of the car means we will only pay a percentage of the repair costs.

You're talking absolute toss R1 - in the future, you may want to let claims handlers answer these questions and stick to bluffing your mates down the pub

[R1Geezer]

Right oh so it's deliberate acts that reduce payout, no need to right the magna carta mate, I see where you're coming from. So if I drive with no MOT, that would be deliberate and hence they'd pay out less if I had a crash, is that what you're saying?

[gouldc]

The ombudsman will not allow us to refuse a claim where a vehicle has no MOT, unless a component that would be checked on a test, and would have failed (ie bald trye, defective brakes) directly caused or contirbuted to the incident.

[R1Geezer]

Ok but surely DD and speeding are deliberate acts? I'm struggling to see the distinction.

With the MOT thing would the payout the be reduced as the value of a car without an MOT is a lot less thar one with one?

[abay]

She can claim for insurance if she opted for insurance. For further details to claim for car insurance, visit this following link for better details.
http://insurance-plan-guide.blogspot.com