Question for those who have worked in car insurance

[here now]

Hello,

I'm looking for advice from someone who has experience working in insurance. I appreciate this is not legal advice but I am looking for advice on the basis of the balance of probability as it relates to a car insurance claim, specifically with Hastings.

I was involved in a collision where I was at fault, although this was due to a fault with the vehicle which I had reported to the manufacturer and had a service appointment booked to have the issue looked at. I was not informed by the manufacturer in a recorded phone call that this fault could potentially be a safety issue (which it ultimately was). Police attended the scene and I was breathalysed at the roadside. The particular machine used did not provide a numerical reading, only pass or fail (this was verified with officers at the time of the accident and a week later on calling the OIC). I failed the roadside breath test and was arrested under Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act for being over the prescribed limit of alcohol. I was taken to a police station and did an evidential breath test 3.5 hours later and blew a 13mg per 100ml of breath. I was released without charge or any further action.

Under Hastings Car Insurance policy wording (as standard) I am not covered if an accident happens while I or anyone entitled to drive under my current Certificate of Motor Insurance:
• Is found to be over the prescribed limit for alcohol or drugs in the country where the incident happens
• Is driving while unfit through alcohol, drugs or other substances, whether prescribed or not
• Doesn’t provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason.

Hastings have asked that I provide the numerical result of my breath test. I informed them that a number was not given at the roadside. The only official number logged is 13mg of breath per 100ml (although I have not yet confirmed this with Hastings as I only just had it verified with the OIC).

Therefore, what I am seeking to understand is whether the roadside test (fail but no numerical value) and the arrest for under Section 5 for being over the prescribed limit is enough on the balance of reasonable probabilities for them to cancel my insurance or not cover my claim.

If the answer is yes on the balance of reasonable probabilities, I want to call them up and be fully honest with them, explaining the above situation with the intention of cancelling my insurance before they cancel on me as it is clear from previous posts in this forum that cancelled insurance would be a life long cross to bear.

I would value any views from those who have worked in car insurance and can give a balanced view.

Finally, I want to stress that I understand that you should never get behind the wheel after having a drink and I will never make this mistake again.

 

[Bad_karma]

It’s a very thorny and complex issue as well as one that you are unlikely to get a clear-cut answer to.

There are examples on this site I believe where Admiral attempted to claw back RTC costs following an arrest even though the person was not charged. From memory they blew 37 and whilst below the prosecution limit they were still refused cover. Whilst I understand your reading was lower I mention it to highlight the very different sides for criminal and civil action. I have also seen a few insurance policies whereby even an arrest for drink driving is sufficient for them to refuse cover as you have failed a roadside breath test to end up being arrested.

If I were you I would cancel the insurance. I can’t speak as to whether or not they will cancel it on you but don’t see any value in waiting to find out in case they do.

Also important to remember that you control the level of information they have in their hands. The less they know the better.

 

[Xeronema]

Under Hastings Car Insurance policy wording (as standard) I am not covered if an accident happens while I or anyone entitled to drive under my current Certificate of Motor Insurance:
• Is found to be over the prescribed limit for alcohol or drugs in the country where the incident happens
• Is driving while unfit through alcohol, drugs or other substances, whether prescribed or not

I'm only speculating here, so please don't take what I write to be anything but 'food for thought'.

It looks to me that they've put those two points (bullet points) into the T&C's in order to cover all bases. I suspect that quite a few people are involved in RTI's and RTC's (interesting fact, there's no such thing as a RTA anymore - someone is always at fault) and were over the prescribed limit at the roadside however there was sufficient time between the roadside breath sample and the one taken on the lion intoxilyzer at the police station for the person to fall under the limit. This to me just sounds like the insurance companies method of doing a form of back calculations without actually having to do them.

I'm sorry I couldn't be of any help, it's all just speculation from me I'm afraid. One of the main reasons for commenting my thoughts is to inform folk to take a look at their insurance policy terms and conditions so that they are up to speed with how they may be affected should they end up in a similar situation to yours.

I wish you the best of luck and I agree with Bad_karma's advice to cancel your policy, rather than them cancelling it for you - I don't know the exact reason as to why it's so bad for that to happen, I just know that it is.

 

[here now]

Thank you both for providing your perspectives, much appreciated.

UPDATE:

I have decided to cancel my insurance to ensure I don't have a cancelled policy on my record that I would need to declare every time I seek to take out a new policy or renew an existing one as this would keep my premiums high for as long as I intend to drive which I desperately wanted to avoid. This unfortunately means I will need to shoulder a fairly substantial financial burden up front but I made the decision on the basis that the financial burden will be payable by me in any event and it is better for me to cancel than to have the financial burden plus a declarable cancelled policy on my record.

The claim is still ongoing and I intend to be fully cooperative with my insurer as I have been up until now to ensure I don't run into any issues.

I appreciate the issues I have set out in this thread are different from a lot of what is being posted here but I wanted to share this experience in case others find themselves in this grey zone and aren't sure where to start. On looking at policies with other insurers, it is interesting to see the difference in policy wording as it relates to these three themes:

• Is found to be over the prescribed limit for alcohol or drugs in the country where the incident happens
• Is driving while unfit through alcohol, drugs or other substances, whether prescribed or not
• Doesn’t provide a sample of breath, blood or urine when required to do so, without lawful reason.

For example, 1st Central Car Insurance has the wording "If found convicted" of being over the prescribed limit for alcohol or drugs in the country where the incident happens, then you are not covered by their policy. Had I been with 1st Central (for example) then I would have been covered. I'm not advocating that my lack of conviction makes my actions acceptable, but what it has highlighted to me is the importance of really understanding my car insurance policy and all of the terms and conditions so I am clear about what is covered and what is not.

In any event, this whole situation has been a huge wake-up call for me and I will never make this mistake again as I recognise how foolish I have been. I will provide any further updates from my experience on the off chance it is helpful for someone in the future.

 

[Bad_karma]

You are correct to highlight the vast divergence in how insurers approach this issue. It’s a meticulously worded clause which combined with the fact it’s a civil issue means insurers largely have free will to at best cancel your policy and at worst try to shake you down to recover all third party costs.

I certainly would never encourage you to lie to your insurer but will caution you about how upfront and cooperative you are with them. Be careful you aren’t inadvertently providing them with the rope to hang you with. If you were to send them the second paragraph you have written on your first post, for example, you are basically admitting you have fallen foul of their policy as well as providing them with hard evidence you have done so by openly admitting it.