The Lemon Fool

Clitheroekid wrote:The key evidence was that her phone records showed that she'd sent 4 texts to her boss in the few minutes before the collision

But it is perfectly possible to dictate and transmit a text hands free. I can do it on my phone. So this is not proof of a crime.

Gryff

I have once found myself confronted with a problem on the road in front of me that so confused me that I slowed and stopped. Behind me was a tourist minibus with its driver's attention presumably diverted by the need to keep entertaining his passengers by pointing out features of the scenery. He rear-ended me.

Was I at fault for stopping? Was he at fault for inattention? Happily this happened in NZ where the rule of the road seems to be that the rear-ender is always in the wrong.

Kantwebefriends wrote:Happily this happened in NZ where the rule of the road seems to be that the rear-ender is always in the wrong.

Which neatly takes us back to where CK came in. NZ has no-fault insurance, which would achieve what he wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_ ... orporation

I'd say the article is a bit harsh on the scheme, but I haven't had cause to look at for a long time.

genou wrote:

Kantwebefriends wrote:Happily this happened in NZ where the rule of the road seems to be that the rear-ender is always in the wrong.

Which neatly takes us back to where CK came in. NZ has no-fault insurance, which would achieve what he wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_ ... orporation

I'd say the article is a bit harsh on the scheme, but I haven't had cause to look at for a long time.

I recalled that NZ’s ACC scheme was in the news following the White Island volcano disaster, where it was mentioned that the existence of the ACC scheme would prevent those injured or the families of those killed bringing negligence claims against the NZ trip operators - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... negligence

Although the ACC covered the overseas tourists who were injured or killed, being prevented from suing someone didn’t go down well with the Americans who cast around for someone else to take to court, presumably in the hope of getting the usual over the top settlement that American courts frequently give rather than just the amounts they would receive from the ACC, and are now suing the cruise line - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... nd-volcano

Meanwhile the NZ government has woken up to the issue that the existence of the ACC scheme and the prevention from being sued meant that NZ adventure trip operators were offering activities that operators in other countries would consider far too dangerous - although in the White Island case they do now seem to be taking a criminal interest (although that is normally a higher hurdle) - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/worl ... lcano.html

AF62 wrote:Meanwhile the NZ government has woken up to the issue that the existence of the ACC scheme and the prevention from being sued meant that NZ adventure trip operators were offering activities that operators in other countries would consider far too dangerous

Oooh.

I wonder if that explains why I've never been able to replicate my first ever white-water experience?

That was on a river in NZ in November 1990, and was truly exciting. Everywhere I've tried it since - from Oz to European countries like Norway and Switzerland - has been a total let-down by comparison.

Bminusrob wrote:If I have car insurance, but I am over the alcohol (or drug) limit, doesn't this invalidate the car insurance?

Generally no. The insurer will have to pay out on any third party liability. Some insurers have a clause that allows them to recover these costs from you in the event that you are over the limit. As far as I know only Admiral Group companies do this.

tsr2 wrote:Some insurers have a clause that allows them to recover these costs from you in the event that you are over the limit. As far as I know only Admiral Group companies do this.

How does that work then? Do they come after you if you have assets like a house, or seek an attachment of earnings? Sounds like fodder for campaigners including journos telling us how evil the big corporations are. What view do courts take of that, bearing in mind how lenient they often are on motorists - even those guilty of causing death by extreme recklessness - who get the right lawyer to plead "exceptional hardship"?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

tsr2 wrote:Some insurers have a clause that allows them to recover these costs from you in the event that you are over the limit. As far as I know only Admiral Group companies do this.

How does that work then? Do they come after you if you have assets like a house, or seek an attachment of earnings? Sounds like fodder for campaigners including journos telling us how evil the big corporations are. What view do courts take of that, bearing in mind how lenient they often are on motorists - even those guilty of causing death by extreme recklessness - who get the right lawyer to plead "exceptional hardship"?

Depends on the amount of the liability I would think. If it is just damage to another vehicle then it might be manageable. But if you have one over the limit and then mow down a couple of lawyers on a zebra crossing, the liability could be in the millions and the insurance company would have little chance of retrieving that in practice, and quite possibly would not attempt it as it would be throwing good money after bad.

It is also bad PR for an insurance company to do this. if it is correct that Admiral is the only insurer to do this, then that leaves them uncompetitive versus other insurers, and their policy about this can be easily avoided. I expect my insurer to cover me no matter what the nature of the incident. After all this is a cost that is imposed upon me externally that I am forced to pay for.

Lootman wrote:Depends on the amount of the liability I would think. If it is just damage to another vehicle then it might be manageable. But if you have one over the limit and then mow down a couple of lawyers on a zebra crossing, the liability could be in the millions and the insurance company would have little chance of retrieving that in practice, and quite possibly would not attempt it as it would be throwing good money after bad.

It is also bad PR for an insurance company to do this. if it is correct that Admiral is the only insurer to do this, then that leaves them uncompetitive versus other insurers, and their policy about this can be easily avoided. I expect my insurer to cover me no matter what the nature of the incident. After all this is a cost that is imposed upon me externally that I am forced to pay for.

I don't know the legalities, but Google comes up with lots of discussion from people who are affected.
I don't insure with Admiral for this reason, but few people seem to realise that it's a potential issue, or assume that all insurers are the same so it's effect on their business is probably small enough for them to ignore.

tsr2 wrote:Some insurers have a clause that allows them to recover these costs from you in the event that you are over the limit. As far as I know only Admiral Group companies do this.

I don't insure with Admiral for this reason,

That reads like an admission of serious criminality. Or at least a very casual and entitled attitude to it.

I would certainly not regard it as relevant to a choice of insurer.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

tsr2 wrote:Some insurers have a clause that allows them to recover these costs from you in the event that you are over the limit. As far as I know only Admiral Group companies do this.

I don't insure with Admiral for this reason,

That reads like an admission of serious criminality. Or at least a very casual attitude to it.

I would certainly not regard it as relevant to a choice of insurer.

I do not take it that way at all. Simply that, assuming the same cost, one policy presents better value by covering a broader range of situations and possibilities.

I am grateful to tsr2 for providing that information. I have never insured with Admiral but am now quite certain that I never would do. My insurer is supposed to protect me, not sue me. I should not need protecting from my own insurer that I pay for protection.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

tsr2 wrote:Some insurers have a clause that allows them to recover these costs from you in the event that you are over the limit. As far as I know only Admiral Group companies do this.

I don't insure with Admiral for this reason,

That reads like an admission of serious criminality. Or at least a very casual and entitled attitude to it.

I would certainly not regard it as relevant to a choice of insurer.

About once a decade I look back at a decision to drive and think that was probably a bad choice. If one of those very infrequent errors resulted in serious consequences, I would feel that my insurer pursuing me for whatever they chose to pay out, on top of the other consequences would amount to my insurer kicking me when I was down. Also, they could pursue me for the consequences of another named drivers transgressions.
I do not take a casual attitude to drinking and driving, equally I recognise that I have made mistakes and may do so again. Some people may regard it as taking a reasonable stand against drinking and driving and I understand that, but I choose to leave enforcement of drink drive laws for any incident I am involved in to the police and not my insurance company.

Lootman wrote:I am grateful to tsr2 for providing that information. I have never insured with Admiral but am now quite certain that I never would do. My insurer is supposed to protect me, not sue me. I should not need protecting from my own insurer that I pay for protection.

I might be missing the point here.

In these scenarios the insurer would only be suing you if you acted illegally eg driving under the influence? Isnt it ? So you are concerned that if you chose to break the law your insurer will sue you?

didds wrote:In these scenarios the insurer would only be suing you if you acted illegally eg driving under the influence?

Also named drivers, so not necessarily just you.
When an insurer starts enforcing the law where do you draw the line? Should your insurer sue you if you have an accident while speeding? What if you haven't spotted a mechanical issue and you have an accident while driving a car that is judged to be unroadworthy?
I know I have made mistakes and accidentally gone through red lights. Again it's a rare occurrence, but I broke the law. Should I have been sued if I had an accident then?

tsr2 wrote:

didds wrote:In these scenarios the insurer would only be suing you if you acted illegally eg driving under the influence?

Also named drivers, so not necessarily just you.

then they'd be suing the driver that was named, not you?

im just not getting the bit where this is wrong?

didds wrote:

Lootman wrote:I am grateful to tsr2 for providing that information. I have never insured with Admiral but am now quite certain that I never would do. My insurer is supposed to protect me, not sue me. I should not need protecting from my own insurer that I pay for protection.

I might be missing the point here.

In these scenarios the insurer would only be suing you if you acted illegally eg driving under the influence? Isnt it ? So you are concerned that if you chose to break the law your insurer will sue you?

The important distinction here is between a criminal case and a civil case.

In my view an insurer should cover your civil liability if you are involved in an accident even if technically you were breaking a traffic law. But that insurer should not cover for any criminal case that arises from the accident.

I can give you a personal example, albeit without providing too much detail. Many years ago I was sued in a civil court. It was a business related thing and I had business insurance. That insurance not only covered the cost of my defence lawyer (who was chosen for me by the insurance company) but also paid the eventual settlement. So although the court found me partly liable, it didn't actually cost me any money because of insurance, which to my point of view is the entire point of that insurance.

I would expect motor insurance to cover me the same way. But I would not expect that insurance to cover the cost of a defence lawyer in any criminal case that arose from the incident.

Does that make sense?

errm... not entirely.

I get the business insurance for suing - because you may well be innocent as at that stage you are unlikely to have also been guilty of a criminal act.

WRT insurances not covering one for stuff that happens when you have broken the law (eg DUI) then there is a clear breach of the law. the civil case that arises (compensation) is wholly based on that point.
.

the insurance company isn't at this juncture suing you on something that in effect a 3rd party eg the courts haven't already shown is the truth.

Its not a case of the insurers suing you for the 3rd party payout because they SAY you were DUI when you weren't. Is it ?

didds wrote:errm... not entirely.

I get the business insurance for suing - because you may well be innocent as at that stage you are unlikely to have also been guilty of a criminal act.

WRT insurances not covering one for stuff that happens when you have broken the law (eg DUI) then there is a clear breach of the law. the civil case that arises (compensation) is wholly based on that point.
.
the insurance company isn't at this juncture suing you on something that in effect a 3rd party eg the courts haven't already shown is the truth.

Its not a case of the insurers suing you for the 3rd party payout because they SAY you were DUI when you weren't. Is it ?

In my example I had broken a law, even though it was not a criminal matter.

From my perspective the point is not that I am innocent of breaking a traffic law. But rather that part of what I am paying insurance for is coverage for law breaking. (Within reason - harm or damage deliberately done, say in a road rage situation, is different).

In fact I could argue that any driver who is partly guilty of causing an accident has broken a traffic law. Either they were driving too fast for the conditions, or not paying due care and attention, or engaged in risky, negligent or dangerous behaviour etc. Or they were over the limit of course.

And there is always the danger that you will be held liable even if your driving was fine but you just happened to be over the limit. In an accident if blame is not clear but one driver is over the limit and the other under it, then guess who gets blamed?

didds wrote:

tsr2 wrote:

didds wrote:In these scenarios the insurer would only be suing you if you acted illegally eg driving under the influence?

Also named drivers, so not necessarily just you.

then they'd be suing the driver that was named, not you?

im just not getting the bit where this is wrong?

I believe they would sue the policy holder for money paid out on his/her policy, not the named driver, but I could be wrong about that .
As for whether it's wrong, that's not my word. I choose not to insure with them because that's their policy and I have the choice to insure with companies that don't have that policy. If other people make an informed choice to insure with them, that's OK with me. In practice, I'm sure a lot of people don't read the policy sufficiently carefully or assume that all insurance policies are the same. I think Admiral should be more up front about it, but I'm not going to get worked up about it.