Admiral Insurance Drink and Drugs policy

Convicted Driver Insurance
I think what they are relying on is the simple principal of: “damage has been cause to property that caused us expense to put right, you were negligent so we hold you liable to our costs”
Imagine having household insurance where damage is caused to your house and a neighbours. But you were doing building work and it was faulty. They refuse to pay. But you say: “I have insurance”. They would deny the claim because you were reckless, and you would find that the neighbour sued you for the cost of their damage.
The difference in the posters case is that the insurance company HAVE to pay out under their legal duty to cover third party costs, but it does not mean that you have not caused them a loss through negligence and as a common law principal if they have suffered a loss, they are entitled to sue to recover their loss.

Not saying it is fair, just saying what principal the insurance company would rely on if they did take the matter to court.
If I were a judge I would simply ask them why their T's and C's don't state liabilty ofr 3rd Party claims in their documents - it's a simple clause to include - everything else is piff paff. If I were GGG I would say I compared their inurance clause for DrinkDriving to that of companies like Admiral and based on that I chose Hastings (I probably paid mpre for my insurance as a result) - All of your stuff around Neibours houses is completely irrelevant - Yes I was reckless but No I am not accountable for 3rd party claims unless it is in the T's and C's - It isn't so I am not liable!! - They can't rely on some sprious 'principal' when they have a 100 page T's and C's Document this is not a jury trial this is simply what you signed up to.
 
You are not getting what I am saying. It has nothing to do with insurance.

The hastings police I have seen online says:

4. Alcohol and drugs
You’re not covered if an accident happens while you or anyone entitled to drive under your current Certificate of Motor Insurance: “

So your insurance cover is void. You are not covered for the accident. That is clear.
BUT the insurance company have an obligation under law to payout for third party costs, because Road Traffic Act and EU law says so.

The insurance companies case will be that you recklessly caused damage to property for which they are liable to pay, so therefore they are entitled to sue them for their loss.
If the law did not oblige them to pay out, they would not do so, which would mean that the third party would then have to sue you for their loss. This would prove complicated and expensive for the third party which is why the law has been for a number of years that the insurance company must settle their costs, even though they can deny yours.

Look at this quote from a solicitors website on claims:

“Other types of property damage can be covered by insurance, like your own, and only under certain circumstances. The things not covered by insurance often pertain to negligence. If you’re to hit a ball through your window or that of a neighbor, insurance will not cover such damages.”


The negligence in this case is drink driving. It says in the policy that cover is not provided for drink driving. They are made to pay out, not because of the insurance policy but because of the law that requires the claim by a third party to be met. They have suffered a loss and can sue to recover that loss.

Folks, I am not trying to stitch the poster up, or other people who have posted about similar circumstances, I just want them to understand the reasoning behind the case that the insurance company will make, and to show why just going to court and saying “Show me where it says in the terms and conditions that you want me to pay back your losses.” Will not get the case dismissed.

Anyone can sue if the have suffered a loss. If it does reach court then a good solicitor would be essential.
 
Further to the above, I have also seen this in the Hastings online policy:
Item 12 on page 27:

“In all the circumstances listed in general exceptions and general conditions, no cover will be provided to you under the Policy. Instead, your Insurer’s liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Act or alternative laws that apply in the country in which the loss occurs. In such circumstances, Insurers may seek to recover from you, or the driver, any sums paid by the Insurer to discharge that person’s liability, whether in settlement or under a court judgement.”


That perhaps answers the question “where does it say in the policy about 3rd party claims”......
 
Further to the above, I have also seen this in the Hastings online policy:
Item 12 on page 27:

“In all the circumstances listed in general exceptions and general conditions, no cover will be provided to you under the Policy. Instead, your Insurer’s liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Act or alternative laws that apply in the country in which the loss occurs. In such circumstances, Insurers may seek to recover from you, or the driver, any sums paid by the Insurer to discharge that person’s liability, whether in settlement or under a court judgement.”


That perhaps answers the question “where does it say in the policy about 3rd party claims”......
Why dont they simply write a simple clause rather than this Shakesperian speak crap e.g. "If you under the influence you will be liable for all 3rdp party costs" - The paragraph you show here says nothing!
 
Oh dear, the paragraph says everything!
it says quite clearly that if the general exclusions apply (one of them being no cover if drink driving) they they may seek to recover the third party costs that they may be required to provide under the relevant law in that country.
I have seen far worse legal jargon than rhat.the wording is clear.

Drink driving - no cover (general exclusion terms)

They have to meet third party costs by law

They may seek to recover those costs from you.

Which is what they are asking you to do.
 
Further to the above, I have also seen this in the Hastings online policy:
Item 12 on page 27:

“In all the circumstances listed in general exceptions and general conditions, no cover will be provided to you under the Policy. Instead, your Insurer’s liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Act or alternative laws that apply in the country in which the loss occurs. In such circumstances, Insurers may seek to recover from you, or the driver, any sums paid by the Insurer to discharge that person’s liability, whether in settlement or under a court judgement.”


That perhaps answers the question “where does it say in the policy about 3rd party claims”......

What booklet are you looking at - based on the one I have downloaded (Smart Miles) there is no Item 12 on Page 27? It seems there are multiple versions of their insurance in terms of on-line documents!!
 
Last edited:
My cover was premier and that is not in any terms and conditions on my policy.
 
My cover was premier and that is not in any terms and conditions on my policy.
Interesting - the policy being referenced above is Essentials!! which suggests yet more confusion from Insurance providers! John please find the same clause in the Premier Policy?
 
Interesting - the policy being referenced above is Essentials!! which suggests yet more confusion from Insurance providers! John please find the same clause in the Premier Policy?
GGG - This is on Page 31
4. Alcohol and drugs You’re not covered if an accident happens while you or anyone entitled to drive under your 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
 
Interesting - the policy being referenced above is Essentials!! which suggests yet more confusion from Insurance providers! John please find the same clause in the Premier Policy?

Certainly, page 34:

“no cover will be provided to you under the Policy. Instead, your Insurer’s liability will be restricted to meeting the obligations as required by Road Traffic Act or alternative laws that apply in the country in which the loss occurs. In such circumstances, Insurers may seek to recover from you, or the driver, any sums paid by the Insurer to discharge that person’s liability, whether in settlement or under a court judgement.”


CPWP, I am not on the side of the insurance companies. As I said before I am simply setting out the case they will rely on in court, to help you focus on the issues you need to focus on rather than what you have been quoting before.
The wording is in bold, but like the other one I quoted, it is tucked away in section 12 under the title “Where you live”.
You could argue that this would not be a section you would be expected to read as a UK policy would always be expected to cover the UK as a minimum’
My original thoughts that you should not sign the indemnity for them to settle ‘on my behalf’ still stands.
It says elsewhere in the policy on page 4 that it is their discretion as to if liability is admitted and a payout made:

“When defending or settling a claim, your Insurer is entitled to instruct the solicitors of their choice to act for you in any proceedings. If they feel it’s appropriate, your Insurer will be entitled to admit liability, for the costs covered under this Policy, on behalf of you or any person claiming indemnity under the Policy.
Such admissions may be made before or after legal proceedings start.”

You are being told that you are not being covered under the policy and you need to make it clear that you are NOT authorising them to make any admissions on your part.
They say they are excluding you from cover, you need to show that you are axcluding yourself from their right to make admissions in this case.
If they go ahead and pay out and they try to recover their compulsory costs they have to meet, they would have to prove that the accident was your fault to stand a realistic chance of succeeding.

Hopefully this settles the earlier claim: “ Yes I was reckless but No I am not accountable for 3rd party claims unless it is in the T's and C's - It isn't so I am not liable!! - ”
 
Last edited:
Thanks price, I thought I'd read every word of every page, I obviously didn't.
You have given sound advice as usual, I will be sending the letter to them as previously mentioned, I will let you all know how my case goes.
 
Please do let us know How you get on. There are several people here in the same boat.
You are showing that even when looking for their “get out” it can be missed.
If it does get to the court stage then the fact that this important information (must be, because it is in bold) is hidden 3 pages away from the General Exclusions under the heading Where you Live with be a big thing to raise.
 
Hi all - so I’ve just received the dreaded indemnity form!

I’m really unsure whether to sign or not - the claim was definitely my fault and there’s obviously the clause saying they have the right to recover costs - so I’m not sure what the point is.

They say it’s so they can act on my behalf - but don’t they have to do this anyway?!

And if I don’t sign they will ask the TP to sign an assignment and agreement form, which will allow my insurers to manage claim... if they don’t agree, the third party will come after me with court?

I’m really confused and not sure what this all means - also I don’t know whether signing it or not makes an inch of difference. From what I can gather on here they don’t bother trying to reduce the costs of claims and are very careless, not acting in best interests of the insured?

Help! 😓
 
In law, the insurance company are obliged to settle third party costs, so to say that the third party could come after you if you do not authorise the insurers to act on your behalf is a blatant lie!
If you tell them you have no intention of authorising them to negotiate on your behalf, then they will realise it is in THEIR interest to keep the settlement low as they will be saddled with the cost of the claim.
Just write to them and say that you will not be signing the form, you do not consider that their claim to recover third party costs passes the threshold of prominence in their (XX) page policy schedule and if they should end up taking formal action against you then you will defend that claim vigorously and want to see evidence of what they did to minimise the claim.

You say that they are ‘not acting in the best interest of the insured’. That is not relevant.... because they have already told you that you are not insured for this accident! So they are not acting on your behalf, they are acting on their behalf!

If in doubt, consult a solicitor, but make sure you speak to one who has read the terms and conditions of the policy and understand what the law says about the responsibility of the insurance company to meet third party claims. The last post I saw on here was from someone who had spoken to a solicitor who straight away said to sign the disclaimer and clearly had no idea of the obligations placed on insurance companies on third party claims.
 
In law, the insurance company are obliged to settle third party costs, so to say that the third party could come after you if you do not authorise the insurers to act on your behalf is a blatant lie!
If you tell them you have no intention of authorising them to negotiate on your behalf, then they will realise it is in THEIR interest to keep the settlement low as they will be saddled with the cost of the claim.
Just write to them and say that you will not be signing the form, you do not consider that their claim to recover third party costs passes the threshold of prominence in their (XX) page policy schedule and if they should end up taking formal action against you then you will defend that claim vigorously and want to see evidence of what they did to minimise the claim.

You say that they are ‘not acting in the best interest of the insured’. That is not relevant.... because they have already told you that you are not insured for this accident! So they are not acting on your behalf, they are acting on their behalf!

If in doubt, consult a solicitor, but make sure you speak to one who has read the terms and conditions of the policy and understand what the law says about the responsibility of the insurance company to meet third party claims. The last post I saw on here was from someone who had spoken to a solicitor who straight away said to sign the disclaimer and clearly had no idea of the obligations placed on insurance companies on third party claims.
Hi, thanks again. Your staying power for advising on here is commendable!

So basically if they get a signature they don’t need to bother fighting as know I’ll pay? Would have thought this stood anyway as I signed the contract with the clause in. But if I don’t sign they will try and keep costs low in case they can’t recover from me?

What is the threshold of prominence?

By formal action do you mean court or just billing me? I really do not want to go to court! But I would definitely want to see a breakdown of the total cost and contest it as I’m sure something will be inflated.

I (probably stupidly) rang them yesterday and said I would not be signing the form immediately and that I was going to seek advice. I said I would like an estimate of the cost and asked what they’d be doing to ensure costs are kept to a minimum (or something along those lines). I got some unintelligible babble back about premiums, I think. I then said I wasn’t outright refusing not to pay (possibly bad idea?), but I didn’t want to sign unlimited liability without some idea of cost.

I then got the whole third party taking control of the claim and potential CCJ threat... Honestly I couldn’t be any more confused with this situation!
 
“But if I don’t sign they will try and keep costs low in case they can’t recover from me? “
Ye, those are my thoughts.

“ I then said I wasn’t outright refusing not to pay (possibly bad idea?)”

No problem with that.

“I then got the whole third party taking control of the claim and potential CCJ threat... “
The third party is nothing to do with you. They will not be ‘taking control of the claim’ because it is the responsibility of the insurance company to settle the claim under their duty to do this. It is then up to the insurance company to decide how to. Try to recoup what they have paid out.
They have 6 years in which to file a claim with the County Court of they have no success in persuading you to pay.
Even if that were to happen, and they won, providing the claim was paid within 28 days then there would be no CCJ recorded against you.
A number of people have reported on here about similar circumstances in the 8 years that i have been posting and I cannot recall anyone actually ending up in court and made to pay.
 
“But if I don’t sign they will try and keep costs low in case they can’t recover from me? “
Ye, those are my thoughts.

“ I then said I wasn’t outright refusing not to pay (possibly bad idea?)”

No problem with that.

“I then got the whole third party taking control of the claim and potential CCJ threat... “
The third party is nothing to do with you. They will not be ‘taking control of the claim’ because it is the responsibility of the insurance company to settle the claim under their duty to do this. It is then up to the insurance company to decide how to. Try to recoup what they have paid out.
They have 6 years in which to file a claim with the County Court of they have no success in persuading you to pay.
Even if that were to happen, and they won, providing the claim was paid within 28 days then there would be no CCJ recorded against you.
A number of people have reported on here about similar circumstances in the 8 years that i have been posting and I cannot recall anyone actually ending up in court and made to pay.
Thank you!

Why did their letter mention that an assignment and agreement form would be requested from the TP in the event I didn’t sign, and that the TP may not agree to sign this, putting me in a worse situation (by the sounds of it)?

I’ll read up on what the threshold of prominence is about so I don’t sound like an idiot writing to them. Then hopefully I’ll get a bill I can contest and get down to a reasonable amount, and agree a payment plan.

Still none the wiser about the function of this form. It’s obviously my fault, it’s a clause in the contract, I am liable to pay.. why do they need anything else?! I can only assume it’s for their own benefit in some form, that of which I do not know as I am totally alien to all of this.

Thanks again
 
You are only liable to pay of it was made clear to you, and in the case of Hastings policies it is hidden away in the 97 page policy document under: “where you live’” on page 34.....that is certainly not prominent.
I meant to comment about “threshold of prominence” I am not clear what that what this meant, but at a good guess it may refer to what I put above.

“Why did their letter mention that an assignment and agreement form would be requested from the TP in the event I didn’t sign, and that the TP may not agree to sign this, putting me in a worse situation (by the sounds of it)?”

I have no idea, because what the 3rd party does has no impact on you.
If you want to, send me a picture of the letter as a P.M. and I can perhaps comment directly back to you.
 
“But if I don’t sign they will try and keep costs low in case they can’t recover from me? “
Ye, those are my thoughts.

“ I then said I wasn’t outright refusing not to pay (possibly bad idea?)”

No problem with that.

“I then got the whole third party taking control of the claim and potential CCJ threat... “
The third party is nothing to do with you. They will not be ‘taking control of the claim’ because it is the responsibility of the insurance company to settle the claim under their duty to do this. It is then up to the insurance company to decide how to. Try to recoup what they have paid out.
They have 6 years in which to file a claim with the County Court of they have no success in persuading you to pay.
Even if that were to happen, and they won, providing the claim was paid within 28 days then there would be no CCJ recorded against you.
A number of people have reported on here about similar circumstances in the 8 years that i have been posting and I cannot recall anyone actually ending up in court and made to pay.
Hi Price,

I have a question related to the below. Is it 6 years from the data of conviction or accident. I heard some one saying it's 6 years from last correspondence from the insurer.

Please can you advise. Thanks. Sam.

The third party is nothing to do with you. They will not be ‘taking control of the claim’ because it is the responsibility of the insurance company to settle the claim under their duty to do this. It is then up to the insurance company to decide how to. Try to recoup what they have paid out.​
They have 6 years in which to file a claim with the County Court of they have no success in persuading you to pay.​
Even if that were to happen, and they won, providing the claim was paid within 28 days then there would be no CCJ recorded against you​
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top