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?