Lamac99
New Member
Seeking advice for a friend in a possibly unusual situation.
His (now ex) GF drove their car drunk into someone else property resulting in a Third Party pay out only.
The car was in the girlfriends name, but he was the policy holder with her as a named driver.
He as policyholder is now being pursued 2.5 years later by the insurance company for recovery of money paid out to 3rd party, iro £12500.
Exact policy wording is: "We will not pay more than our legal liability under compulsory motor insurance legislation for any claim, if the driver of your car at the time of the accident: a) is found to be over the permitted limit for alcohol; b) is unfit to drive through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise; or c) fails to provide a swab sample or sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason. Where we are required to make a payment in such circumstances, we reserve the right to recover any such amounts from you or the driver of your car. "
It seems unjust that they are going after him, the policyholder, to recover the money as he was not at fault, and did not himself breach any policy conditions and policy clearly states "we reserve the right to recover any such amounts from you or the driver of your car" which makes you think that they should only legally be able to sue the person liable?
Also they state "We will not pay more than our legal liability under compulsory motor insurance legislation for any claim" - we've tried to read through the RTA to determine their legal liability as insurers and it seems the Road Traffic Act states that any term in a policy which attempts to invalidate the TP cover in these circumstances has no effect?
Has anyone any personal experience of this or know how lawful the insurers claim against him actually is? It does not seem like fair judgement by the insurance company. Thanks.
His (now ex) GF drove their car drunk into someone else property resulting in a Third Party pay out only.
The car was in the girlfriends name, but he was the policy holder with her as a named driver.
He as policyholder is now being pursued 2.5 years later by the insurance company for recovery of money paid out to 3rd party, iro £12500.
Exact policy wording is: "We will not pay more than our legal liability under compulsory motor insurance legislation for any claim, if the driver of your car at the time of the accident: a) is found to be over the permitted limit for alcohol; b) is unfit to drive through drink or drugs, whether prescribed or otherwise; or c) fails to provide a swab sample or sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason. Where we are required to make a payment in such circumstances, we reserve the right to recover any such amounts from you or the driver of your car. "
It seems unjust that they are going after him, the policyholder, to recover the money as he was not at fault, and did not himself breach any policy conditions and policy clearly states "we reserve the right to recover any such amounts from you or the driver of your car" which makes you think that they should only legally be able to sue the person liable?
Also they state "We will not pay more than our legal liability under compulsory motor insurance legislation for any claim" - we've tried to read through the RTA to determine their legal liability as insurers and it seems the Road Traffic Act states that any term in a policy which attempts to invalidate the TP cover in these circumstances has no effect?
Has anyone any personal experience of this or know how lawful the insurers claim against him actually is? It does not seem like fair judgement by the insurance company. Thanks.