Strange Clause in Insurance Policy

[l5foye]

I don't usually read the numerous clauses that are in insurance policies. However I came across one which ,on the face of it, is alarming.
Under Accidental Damage, it states ' We won't cover
= Loss or damage caused by anyone who is convicted for driving while under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of the accident.

Has anyone come across such a clause? What exactly does it mean?

 

[MSG2004]

Nothing strange as an ins co will cover a drunk/drugged driver that is fully insured for third party only - its a bit like you racing the car which is not allowed under genral/normal comp ins etc as same as 'hire for reward' I think its call ie mini-cabbing.

A mate of mine found out about 25 years ago when he crashed his car into a street lamp, his insurance did not pay out. Having said that, possibly in the old days it did cover you, ie pre 1980's?

Edit - ins wont cover you if you have been declared medically unfit to drive and you carry on driving

 

[Dryce]

I don't usually read the numerous clauses that are in insurance policies. However I came across one which ,on the face of it, is alarming.
Under Accidental Damage, it states ' We won't cover
= Loss or damage caused by anyone who is convicted for driving while under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of the accident.

Has anyone come across such a clause? What exactly does it mean?

It's normal.

However it will apply only to the driver and their property. The Road Traffic Act insurance requirements mean that third parties will still be covered.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Basically if you are pi$$ed or $toned when you have your accident they are not paying out.

 

[markjay]

It's normal.

However it will apply only to the driver and their property. The Road Traffic Act insurance requirements mean that third parties will still be covered.

The insurer will always cover third party damages, as long as there's an insurance policy for the car, and regardless of anything else.

However, if the driver was unfit to drive, or wasn't a named driver on the policy, or the car had undeclared modifications, or the car was stolen, etc etc, then (a) the insurer won't pay out anything other than third party damages, and (b) the insurer will attempt to recover their costs from the uninsured driver via a civil lawsuit.

 

[l5foye]

I can understand it if the clause referred to the insured person but it states 'anyone' .

 

[markjay]

I can understand it if the clause referred to the insured person but it states 'anyone' .

The driver might not be the policy holder. It could be a named driver, or the policy may be an 'any driver' policy.

 

[BTB 500]

I can understand it if the clause referred to the insured person but it states 'anyone' .

There may be multiple named drivers on the policy though. Obviously there's no cover of any type (whatever the circumstances) for anyone who isn't insured to drive the vehicle under the policy.

As mentioned the clause is a standard one which I've seen many times.

 

[BTB 500]

The insurer will always cover third party damages, as long as there's an insurance policy for the car, and regardless of anything else.

Only if the driver at the time is covered by that policy, surely?

 

[markjay]

Only if the driver at the time is covered by that policy, surely?

No, not as far as I know, anyway. My understanding is that by law the insurer is obliged to pay for all third party damages as long as the car is covered by a motor insurance policy, but they can then chase the driver for their losses.

 

[TC350]

I can understand the OP’s concern. Without seeing the rest of the clauses it could mean that if your car is damaged by any other motorist in another car while they’re drunk/drugged, the insurance company will have nothing to do with it. So if you’re hit by a drunk uninsured driver, tough sh1t.

 

[markjay]

I can understand the OP’s concern. Without seeing the rest of the clauses it could mean that if your car is damaged by any other motorist in another car while they’re drunk/drugged, the insurance company will have nothing to do with it. So if you’re hit by a drunk uninsured driver, tough sh1t.

I see your point. i think that the answer is that, in essence, you should be claiming off the other party's insurer in these circumstances, i.e., where the other parry caused the accident and was later convicted of 'driving while under the influence'.

 

[TC350]

I see your point. i think that the answer is that, in essence, you should be claiming off the other party's insurer in these circumstances, i.e., where the other parry caused the accident and was later convicted of 'driving while under the influence'.

Shouldn’t it be your own insurers who do this?

And what if the other party isn’t insured - perhaps even if their insurance is invalidated as a result of them being under the influence of drink or drugs?

 

[BTB 500]

No, not as far as I know, anyway. My understanding is that by law the insurer is obliged to pay for all third party damages as long as the car is covered by a motor insurance policy, but they can then chase the driver for their losses.

That would mean anyone could legally drive anyone else's car so long as it had an insurance policy (as 3rd party cover would be in place)?? I don't think that can be right

 

[markjay]

Shouldn’t it be your own insurers who do this?

And what if the other party isn’t insured - perhaps even if their insurance is invalidated as a result of them being under the influence of drink or drugs?

Your own insurer will act in this case as an accident management firm, I.e. they'll manage the claim for you but it will be against the other-party's policy, not yours.

The other-party's insurer cannot invalidate a policy to the extent that it won't cover third-party payments. Instead, they'll pay out and then chase the driver for the money.

If the other party's car has no motor insurance cover at all, then the claim will be against the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB).

Again, invalidating an existing policy doesn't allow the insurer to avoid making payments to third-parties (in an at-fault accident), but it does allow the insurer to try and recover their costs from the at-fault driver afterwards.

This is my understanding, anyway.