| inglewood |
So I was having a discussion with a friend today about impaired drivers. Say a guy hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk in his car. The driver of the vehicle is intoxicated/impaired by whatever means, meth, alcohol, coke, whatever you pick. The damages recieved by the victim are likely to be in the millions, especially if they're left a quad or parapalegic, or brain injured. Apparently, insurance companies are only legally required to provide the minimum liability coverage (which in Alberta is $250,000) in cases where the driver of the vehicle was intoxicated.
Does anybody know anymore about this? As in, how can an insurance company indemnify itself from covering a victim because their customer was intoxicated. I heard that this was supposed to be some form of punishment to the driver for doing something stupid...but if he's some loley part-time worker in a bent-up chevette, can he really be expected to pay a million dollar settlement? This doesn't seem fair to the victim in my opinion.
Can somebody clarify what the minimum liability coverage in Alberta is, as well as whether or not this is true (about insurance company's being allowed to limit their liabilities)? |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
Well here's what I was told, I was involved in an accident where a pedestrian had ran out infront of me, and I was told by the cops and my ins had the witness been good and theirs matched mine the pedestrian would have been at fault.. but anyhow....
At the time I had $500,000 coverage, shocked the hell outta me cause I thought I had $250,000. Andhow the pedestrian's wife filed a lawsuit and wanted over $600,000, new house, new car, pain and suffering of the pedestrian, her loss of company of her husband, etc, etc. I was told worst case, if it went to court and they judge awarded them what they wanted I would have to make up the differance above what my ins covered. so over $100,000
** I felt I should add that I don't drink or anything.
My understanding is that ins will pay out to a maximim of what your coverage is then drop you if you where under the influance, then it would be very hard to get ins again. |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
| I have heard the same hearsay about impaired drivers not being covered by their insurance underwriter. I look forward to the answer. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
I talked to my father recently about this, because my cousin got a DUI and hit a steel fence, totalling his car (Well, his buddies car, but that's an even longer story).
He explained that the damage sustained to your vehicle, even if you have collision, is NOT covered by insurance. The insurance company will pay out all the PLPD damage (So hitting a pedestrian, another car, lamp post, etc...), however they will typically sue the DUI driver for that money.
This is pretty much general practice across the board, however it is always at the discretion of the adjustor like any other claim. |
|
|
| HEWSINATOR |
What Trevor said is true.
In your insurance you will have a "condition" that if violated and causes the claim/accident/liability, renders the insurance void, as the insurer never chose to accpet you acting like this as part of the risk. In fact, driving while impaired is a statutory condition, meaning that it is not just your insurance company that decides this but included in the Insurance Act (Law).
All this said, it would be unfair that I do not get coverage if you mow me down while being pissed, because you were doing somehting wrong (impaired). Automibile insurance has a 3rd party aspect, and this part is not voided if you breach a condition of the insurance contract, however, as pointed out, they may be able to recover losses from you, but have fun taking a 16 year olds 92 Integra, and $300 dollars in the bank. |
|
|
| inglewood |
quote:
Originally posted by HEWSINATOR
In your insurance you will have a "condition" that if violated and causes the claim/accident/liability, renders the insurance void, as the insurer never chose to accpet you acting like this as part of the risk.
Ah yes, that makes sense...I guess it would be in the fine print on the details of the insurance coverage...but at the same time, I'm just concerned for the welfare of the victim should the driver of the vehicle be incapable of providing the necessary financial means on his own following a lawsuit...although I heard that someone who has very little has an even more difficult time qualifying for bankruptcy if they have an outstanding lawsuit for personal injuries.
Anyways, thanks for your input dudes. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by inglewood
Ah yes, that makes sense...I guess it would be in the fine print on the details of the insurance coverage...but at the same time, I'm just concerned for the welfare of the victim should the driver of the vehicle be incapable of providing the necessary financial means on his own following a lawsuit...although I heard that someone who has very little has an even more difficult time qualifying for bankruptcy if they have an outstanding lawsuit for personal injuries.
Anyways, thanks for your input dudes.
I think you're understanding wrong.
The drunk driver hits the pedestrian.
The insurance company will NOT cover the drunk drivers car. However, because the drunk driver has PLPD the insurance company will pay out the pedestrian and sue the drunk driver for the damage. So yes, the pedestrian does get paid out by the insurance company. |
|
|
| inglewood |
| yes, that makes sense. thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
