Pursued by insurance company for uninisured losses

[Glitch]

Did the FOS speciifically say that Admiral cannot pursue you for their outlay?

 

Have you taken legal advice about the onnerous nature of the D&D term? If not it could well be worth speaking to a specialist consumer legal expert to see if it falls foul of the unfair contracts laws etc.

 

The FOS sometimes make odd decisions as they're very biased towards the consumer and tend to look at what's fair rather than what the policy wording says, what level did it goto within the Ombudsman?

 

I'm surprised they ruled it was not a claim as there's a section of the policy covering RTA (Liability to others) under which the claim has been paid as they have no option under the RTA statute, like any other claim where they have someone else they can claim off they can then attempt to recover their outlay.That would be my view of it but it's good news that they ruled in your favour on this part

 

Not specifically in their requirements of Admiral but it is strongly implied in their decision

"As Admiral was provided with the appropriate indemnity from the named driver, it has the right of recovery against him but its success or otherwise should not affect the policyholder, Mr X (me) or indeed his NCD, as costs incurred by Admiral were not costs incurred under the policy, but cost incurred under its liability as detailed in the Road Traffic Act."

 

I know the FOS are notorious for weird, irrational decisions but his looks like the best outcome under the circumstances and I suspect I need to accept the decision which will bind Admiral to the recommendations.

These are 1. remove all reference to the claim in internal and external databases. 2. Recalculate my NCD as if claim has not occurred. 3. Compensate me for any additional costs relating to increased premiums.

 

I have raised the D&D exclusion with the FSA and they basically say it would be excluded from an assessment of fairness under the Regulations. Don't quite understand the FSA logic "As the term defines the main subject matter of the contract, we consider that this is a core term" I would be happy to pay a decent solicitor to review it, if I can find one.

[sgtbush]

deleted after personal consideration on my point

Edited June 2, 2013 by sgtbush

[Ganymede]

In Germany it has to be at least 10kph and has to be heard in court.

 

 

 

Fortunately/Unfortunately we don't live in Germany.

[Glitch]

Fortunately/Unfortunately we don't live in Germany.

 

Yes, I really wish I did/didn't live in Germany

[mattyprice4004]

I'm glad it's getting sorted out, but I'm very much on Admiral's side - I believe they are correct in claiming back any money they've had to pay out.

 

He took the decision to get plastered and drive, so why should the insurance company suffer due to his negligence?

 

I pay far too much as it is, without drunk fools pushing my premiums up further.

[Glitch]

When Admiral do the same for all the other negligent drivers (there is always someone at fault), like the ones who use their mobiles and cause more accidents than drunks then I'll be happy.

 

BTW Admiral have the same exclusion clause about vehicle condition. A valid MOT is irrelevant. If your brakes, steering or suspension not roadworthy and "contribute to the accident" then they'll only settle under the RTA and be after you for the TP claims. I bet that will create more indignation and outrage than the shame faced drunks.

 

Admiral in a tiny minority of insurers that use these exclusions so that's why I will never use them again.

[Express]

Have you heard anything more from Admiral yet? The claim seems outrageous expensive for such a small amount of damage!

[hoolio]

Hi Glitch,

 

 

I'm wondering how your case with Admiral may be progressing, or not progressing? I have an almost identical case which is obviously worrying me, with a named driver on my insurance caught and prosecuted for DUI, and with Admiral now pursuing me as policyholder for two third party claims for "medical" (I assume whiplash) and "mechanical". Admiral say they can't send me medical records for data protection reasons. My view (well, hope, actually), is that they can't pursue me for costs they cannot substantiate. Anyway, I'd be most grateful for any advice you and others may be able to offer.

 

 

Many thanks!

[dacouc]

/Did the named driver have permission from you to drive the vehicle at the time?

[hoolio]

/Did the named driver have permission from you to drive the vehicle at the time?

 

 

 

Hi dacouc, Many thanks for your reply. Yes, the named driver had my permission. I may be clutching at straws, having signed Admiral's indemnity shorty after the named driver was convicted and Admiral then contacted me, but I think that Admiral can't pursue this because owing to the Data Protection Act they can't disclose and hence cannot substantiate any medical claim. So the question is really a contractual one, can someone pursue another person for a debt they cannot substantiate in writing?

[bucket.loads]

Hello Hoolio Have you got any updates on this matter? Eager to hear more!