I am interested to hear from anyone in a similar situation where the Admiral Group of insurers which includes Admiral, Bell, Diamond and Elephant are pursuing you for the repayment of third party costs.
Specifically under their Drink and Drugs exclusion in their policy (section 5?)
You may also see Admiral Group under the name of EUI limited.
I am not a legal expert, just a concerned parent and a person who dislikes injustice.
I suggest people read this
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1657.html
EUI lost the case and had to pay up for £200k of damage to a property that one of their policyholders did in a suicide attempt. EUI unsuccessfully tried to avoid their obligations under the Road Traffic Act. what did arise in this case was reference to Ruiz Bernaldez
http://www.mibclaim.co.uk/resources...l-proceedings-ruiz-bernldez-case-c12994-1996/ Under Spanish national law the insurer can avoid the policy if the driver is intoxicated. The Spanish Court referred questions to the European Court where I believe (with my laymans lack of legal knowledge) the direction was that Bernaldez insurer had to pay the TP costs but they had the right to pursue Bernaldez for repayment. The European part of it relates to Directives that standardise the approach in every EU country.
I believe this is the case that has made EUI (Admiral Group) think they can get away with their Drink and Drug Exclusion.
I have yet to find a case that has gone to court in the UK where Admiral have succeeded. AFAIK under UK law if you have a valid certificate of insurance the insurer has to pay for third party damage and injury but under the RTA, Section 148 they cannot include terms that avoid the policy based on certain criteria (subsection 2) including the physical and mental state of the driver.
As far as I have seen so far only the Admiral Group have this specific term and a quick check of other major insurers policy documents shows that no one else does it. I suspect because Admiral have a more aggressive business model and believe they can intimidate people into paying. I can only speculate that other insurers don't do it because it is not supported under UK Law.
I may have got this partially or completely wrong so more than happy to be corrected. In fact I am seeking clarity from anyone about whether Admiral's Drink and Drugs terms are enforceable under UK law and whether a UK court will take the Bernaldez case into consideration when making a judgment.
My advice is to call the FSA and complain about the unfair term in the contract - It is a non-negotiated contract that puts the consumer at a disadvantage - you are taking on unlimited liability. I think the highest motor insurance claim is £20m.
Also consider complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm if you believe you have a valid complaint against your insurer.
Please PM me. I am happy to share what I know and especially interested in any cases that have actually made it to court or are on the process of going to court.