Car Ins Refusing to Pay

[top_gear]

Hello All,

 

Recently I had a car accident involving myself and barrier which caused the car to be written off L

To cut a long story short, I called the police & ambulance they breathalysed me which to my horror I failed but passed the blood test at the station. The blood test come back at more than half under.

After sending a copy of the results to the ins company to show that everything was okay they are refusing to pay for a) the car & b) damage to the barrier because I was ‘under the influence’.

I’ve spoken to them about this clause and what actually constitutes being ‘under the influence’, would a sip of a shandy be okay? They keep stating that each case is treated on its own merits.

Has anyone else come across this before?

[Mossycat]

The reason for a blood test is because the roadside breath test is NOT an accurate measure of your blood/alcohol level.

 

The breath test is an indicator of the likelihood of someone been over the prescribed limit, if you pass the roadside test you are on your way there and then, if you fail you are taken to a station for either another breath test (on a far more accurate machine) or a blood test. The result of this second test determines whether you are to be charged or not.

 

Several things affect the result of the roadside test, the main one is how long it has been since your last drink. Just because you blew a positive breath test at roadside does NOT mean you are over the prescribed limit, there could be any number of reasons why that happened (faulty test unit, recent drink etc etc).

 

Refer this back to your insurers and tell them that you were NOT charged with the offence of drink driving because you were not over the limit, threaten them with the Ombudsman and if they still refuse to deal with the claim then that's your only option.

 

You don't need to get into specifics about what you actually drank, just the fact that you passed the second test is enough to negate the drink drive allegation.

 

Mossy

[patdavies]

Mossycat is absolutely right.

 

You cannot be charged or convicted on the basis of a roadside test - it is merely a filtering device. All that matters is the reading at the Police Station.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Thats good advice from Mossycat, you will need a final response from your insurers before the FOS will look at any complaint.

look at this link Financial Ombudsman Service

Andy

[theclaimbroker]

Your insurer does not have a leg to stand on. You were legally under the limit. I would put more pressure on them they will concede.

 

Which insurer out of interest?

[vusys1]

very strange as dont you have to be over the limit to be deemed legally under the influence?

 

Aviva used to have this clause,do they still have it?

[top_gear]

Thanks everyone for their responses especially mossy I shall see what they say

[Mossycat]

If they still refuse to deal with your claim post back what their response is and we'll see what we can suggest before you go to FOS

 

Mossy

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi can I just add if you have not conducted communication with them in writing, then you should from now on, this will ensure if they refuse you there will be evidence to assist with an escalation to the FOS.

Can someone confirm that the insurance company are still required to pay a fee to the FOS as part of the investigation.

Andy

[LemonTwist]

very strange as dont you have to be over the limit to be deemed legally under the influence?

 

Aviva used to have this clause,do they still have it?

 

As far as I can see, Aviva doesn't have a clause like this. Whether they did in the past, I'm not sure, so I'll take your word for it.

 

Can you let me know where you bought this policy, so I can check the relevant policy wording?

 

Insurers are required to pay a fee to the FOS if a case reaches the investigation stage - this fee applies regardless of whether the complaint is upheld. This document explains when a case becomes chargeable.

 

My bet is that your claims is being handled by an inexperienced claims adviser and they have made a mistake. I can understand why one might try to reject a claim if the driver was actually convicted of drink driving (dependent on policy wording), but not if no conviction was ever made.

Edited July 12, 2009 by LemonTwist

[top_gear]

http://www.elephant.co.uk/policyDocs/ELE.pdf - Page 19

 

Letters been fired off, will keep you all updated.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi

I've looked at the policy document Elephant fail to clarify anywhere what exactly they mean by under the influence, I suspect its left like that as a catch all IMO the FOS wont like that one bit.

 

Andy