Henri0000
Member
I have read other threads relating to Admiral policy, I am interested to know if it would be worth pursuing a legal case against the decision to drop my cover
I have contacted a few companies who are willing to review, asking £500 upfront - obviously at the moment I am struggling to afford this and its difficult to find any advice if this would be worth pursuing.
In summary I was involved in a RTI, damage to three other vehicles and my car (write off)
Blew a 41 roadside, taken to hospital agreed to blood samples. Blood was taken approx 3.15 hours after the roadside.
Opted to keep a sample and sent this for independent analysis, I was released without charge pending further investigation the following day.
- the results cam back 74mg/100ml below the prescribed limit, still pending police investigation and results.
Notified the insurance company, following their investigation I was informed that no cover would be given under this policy.
This decision was on the balance of probabilities, that I was over the prescribed limit of alcohol at the time of the incident based off the roadside reading of 41. Also their right to recover 3rd party costs from me.
In a court of law I would not be prosecuted based on the blood alcohol levels, therefore I don't understand how for the insurance company, the standard of proof required is lower than that of a court of law and they can enforce this. This information is not detailed in the policy, it simply states
“11. Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens while any insured person is driving and:
The terms are fairly vague and does not stipulate what basis the decision will be made on, non-evidential readings, evidential reading and/or blood or urine results. There is no mention that their standard level of proof is Lower that the court of law - seems quite ambiguous
The roadside breathalyser results is only an indicator to the administrating police that alcohol has been consumed and a potential factor (as I understand) and non-evidential therefore basing the decision to drop the policy on this result without a person being charged seems harsh.
seeking some advice as to weather it is worth pursuing this, I have read various cases on the financial ombudsman website, they seem to back the decision made by Admiral in most cases however most of the cases evidential breath readings, blood or urine results have been over the prescribed limit .
I have not submitted a complaint to the FO yet, This may be my next step.
I have contacted a few companies who are willing to review, asking £500 upfront - obviously at the moment I am struggling to afford this and its difficult to find any advice if this would be worth pursuing.
In summary I was involved in a RTI, damage to three other vehicles and my car (write off)
Blew a 41 roadside, taken to hospital agreed to blood samples. Blood was taken approx 3.15 hours after the roadside.
Opted to keep a sample and sent this for independent analysis, I was released without charge pending further investigation the following day.
- the results cam back 74mg/100ml below the prescribed limit, still pending police investigation and results.
Notified the insurance company, following their investigation I was informed that no cover would be given under this policy.
This decision was on the balance of probabilities, that I was over the prescribed limit of alcohol at the time of the incident based off the roadside reading of 41. Also their right to recover 3rd party costs from me.
In a court of law I would not be prosecuted based on the blood alcohol levels, therefore I don't understand how for the insurance company, the standard of proof required is lower than that of a court of law and they can enforce this. This information is not detailed in the policy, it simply states
“11. Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens while any insured person is driving and:
- is found to be over the legal limit for alcohol or drugs
- is driving while unfit through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise
- fails to provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful
reason.
The terms are fairly vague and does not stipulate what basis the decision will be made on, non-evidential readings, evidential reading and/or blood or urine results. There is no mention that their standard level of proof is Lower that the court of law - seems quite ambiguous
The roadside breathalyser results is only an indicator to the administrating police that alcohol has been consumed and a potential factor (as I understand) and non-evidential therefore basing the decision to drop the policy on this result without a person being charged seems harsh.
seeking some advice as to weather it is worth pursuing this, I have read various cases on the financial ombudsman website, they seem to back the decision made by Admiral in most cases however most of the cases evidential breath readings, blood or urine results have been over the prescribed limit .
I have not submitted a complaint to the FO yet, This may be my next step.
