A friend’s son in law was driving impaired. He rear ended a car and pushed that car into a second car. He failed a breath test and was arrested. He called his wife from jail and pleaded with her to not divorce him and that he would never drink another drop. This is his second DUI.
My question is about the insurance pay out. Can his car insurance reject the claims due to his intoxicated state?
I can’t speak to your jurisdiction, but where I am if you get in a car accident while under the influence or committing a crime the insurance is void.
https://www.fsrao.ca/consumers/auto-insurance/purchasing-your-policy/what-not-covered
Exactly right, but it does depend on the jurisdiction as some US states may have crazy laws. But the general principle that is pretty common is that insurance coverage doesn’t apply if the driver is legally prohibited from driving, as in DUI, suspended license, or any other legal restriction.
To add to my earlier post, I believe that the collision and accident benefit portions are void. I don’t think they can disclaim the liability portion.
In the US, they can’t. They also have a legal duty to defend any civil case from an injured party (but not a criminal DUI case).
Some will depend on the state specifics, some will depend on the policy specifics, and a lot will depend on how the policy was written.
For a worst case scenario, whose car was he driving? Because if it was one of his own, or the spouse’s was he excluded from the policy to keep the rates under control after the prior DUI? If so, then even the liability may not apply - because the contract explicitly did not cover his driving.
I’ve sued many drunk drivers. Never had liability coverage denied because of intoxication.
Speaking from past personal experience (years ago I worked in Car insurance, from sales to claim to adjuster) - even in the example I gave where a carrier didn’t legally have to pay out, we often did because the bad publicity wasn’t worth it for a smaller (property damage only) claim.
We would then occasionally sue our client and/or the excluded driver, because they were in major breach of conduct, and we had them dead to rights. Of course, bigger lawsuits and BI claims got much more complicated fast.
ETA - one of the reasons I’m suspecting the driver was excluded is their tearful pleas not to be divorced. Sure, they may just be worried about it happening again when it shouldn’t have happened a first time, but if they’re looking at thousands or tens of thousands of dollars coming out of their own pocket due to an uncovered loss, it makes even more sense.
Presumably, having a DUI on the record would then significantly increase the cost of future liability-coverage premiums.
That’s one of the most important reasons to have good insurance. If you’re the subject of a civil suit for damages due to an accident, you have no better ally than the vicious carnivorous lawyers of your insurance company.
Thank you all for your input. I really have no dog in the fight, I was just curious.
As I understand - the insurance may pay the liability to third parties, but then can turn around and sue the DUI guy to recover the money. Or, each other car’s insurance may pay and sue him, jut like an uninsured driver hitting you. Plus, they will not pay for the damage to his car. If he was excluded from driving the wife’s car under the policy, then she would likely not get reimbursed/repaired for knowingly letting him drive it. What I’ve heard from my insurance is - “if you lend your car, be sure they show you a valid current driver’s license.” Plus, you can license a car for pleasure only, but if it’s in an accident going to work, they will likely investigate to see if you habitually drove it there in violation of the policy.
There was a guy at work, we’ll call him “Bob”. Bob was in the company newsletter, “Bob is walking to work each day to get fit.” No, Bob is walking 3 miles to work because he was out at the bar, and on the way home he wrapped his fairly new truck around a tree, right in front of the police station. His wife told him, “F*** you, I’m not driving you to work.” Meanwhile, he still had several years’ payments on a truck that was an undrivable total wreck. Insurance did not cover it.
Anyone can sue for anything, I guess, but no, this is not the case. They don’t.
This depends very much on the state; some allow an intoxication exclusion for DUI, some preclude it. This is very old, but gives a sense of how patchwork it was in 2008 (there may be newer versions):
Interesting. Also, one thing I recall being told was that DUI damage to vehicle fell in the same category as other crimes. If your vehicle, for example, is damaged while serving as the getaway car for a bank robbery, the policy says it is not covered because it was being used in commission of a crime.