Caught drink driving?

The insurance company know (have evidence) Adam failed a blood alcohol test

How do they know and where (and who) did they get the evidence from?

DD is such a serious offence many questions would be asked

TeamGB is correct there is more to be said and the more I think about this something is not quite right, if we have questions what would a good lawyer come up with for either side???

If the OP uses OJ's lawyers he may have a chance - and I think the civil case had different / new evidence which allowed a case for wrongful death - but we digress

It is interesting how the original post was so vague that we have jumped to certain conclusions. On the info now available that Adam has not been prosecuted then Sixt is acting as judge and jury in a kangaroo court which is against moral justice. It is now essential to thoroughly read the insurance policy and also the hire agreement. You might be lucky to find that without any case against you by the police then you have not been 'certified' as 'drunk'.  Under these circumstances your policy should now be in force and as such you only have liability for your excess, if any.

If Sixt are correct in stating that if a renter has any alcohol in their system, above the limit in that country,  whether stopped by the police or not then their insurance is invalid, is a very dangerous situation. It is virtually saying that there is no cover available for any renter who drinks alcohol which is ridiculous and needs to be told to all renters. It means that if anyone who rents a car and has a drink and then drives has invalidated their policy and it will be up to the renter to proove that they were alcohol free at the time of the incident. Or even worse taking this to its illogical extreem then only teetotal renters will be allowed to rent a car!!!!!!!!!! Does it now mean that if a renter has had too much to be legal to drive, so stays at home,  and his car is 'hit' by another car whilst parked with nobody in the car then using Sixt's understanding is that the renter has invalidated his insurance and must pay for the damage?

Methinks a can of worms has been opened.

Steone:   It is virtually saying that there is no cover available for any renter who drinks alcohol which is ridiculous and needs to be told to all renters.

I posted earlier :

"I have always understood, if one is over the limit they are not insured.   If a third party is involved, I believe they can claim from the Government backed Insurance Consortium, so hopeful the innocent party will not be at a loss. (We all pay  a percentage of our premiums to that consortium)."

As for renters being told what the laws are re driving in Spain.  Whilst I see some logic in that most renters, and for that matter I suspect many residents, do not know the Spanish traffic laws  but as in UK ignorance of the law is no defence. 

I suspect every Spaniard  knows being over the limit renders insurance invalid just as they know they must drive on the right and stop at red lights, so why would they think they need to tell renters?  On the odd occasion I have rented in UK on a Spanish DL I have not been instructed on UK law. 

All insurance policies are nul and void if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs your basic accident holiday insurance clearly states this so basically if you are pissed behind the wheel or fall over and break your leg you are going to be left with a large bill to pay .

What insurance policies is going to insure you for drink driving all insurance policies.  Are null and void if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs your basic accident holiday insurance clearly states this so basically if you are pissed behind the wheel or fall over and break your leg you are going to be left with a large bill to pay l wonder what the response would be from any insurance or car hire company if you said you intend to get pissed and drive the car is it really down to the clerk to tell you not to do this (NO BECAUSE YOU ALREADY NO THIS) .

Just a thought.  

Adam will almost certainly have hired the car using a credit card.  He should not be surprised if he finds  that a charge,  up to his limit,  has or will be applied to his credit card account.  

johnzx

good point - adds to the mystery of this story

Some good points here, i have Not been prosecuted 3 months after the accident, my solicitor said its unlikely i will hear anything as they have basically very bad organisation!

The credit card Co. can Not take monies off my card apart from the excess which is 600 euros apparantly that would be a criminal offence on their part.

adam

@adam. I would nevertheless report that card as lost - today - now - and get them to send you a new one.

Adam:  Some good points here, i have Not been prosecuted 3 months after the accident,

Let's hope the police don't read this forum then.

adam

if they have not taken the excess off your card and you have not been prosecuted then they do not have a claim against you

if they do take money then dispute the payment with the credit card compnay

close you card and get a new one, let them chase you and get them to prove you were over the limit but offer nothing

Windtaker - you said..."all insurance policies are nul and void if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs your basic accident holiday insurance clearly states this so basically if you are pissed behind the wheel or fall over and break your leg you are going to be left with a large bill to pay"..

No, it's never ever that simple!  Insurers would get even more flak than they do if they tried to do as you suggest. 

More importantly they were exempted from the UK Unfair Contract Terms legislation by formally agreeing that they would only apply an exclusion to a personal policy that was directly relevant to the loss.

So, using your analogy if being pissed was not connected to the loss this would not be any grounds for repudiation - they would have to pay up regardless.

Acer

Windtalker has a point as it has become commonplace for insurers to have exclusions based on alcohol consumption - but they are vague

interesting link:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/120/120-alcohol-exclusions.html

Sorry, didn't read the post properly. Please ignore my advcie!

Au contraire Tadd - you need to read the 6th paragraph of the article:

<>

The onus of proof is on the insurer to prove the exclusion is relevant.  This is the opposite to Windtakers sweeping claim that "all insurance policies are nul and void if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs" - which is simply untrue. 

Acer

You are right but that does not stop insurance companies adding the exclusion which the ombudsman is challenging due to lack of a defintion and how they would prove it (as a result I believe Zurich have no removed this clause from their travel insurance)

which is what i was saying about the OP how can the insurance company prove he was DUI without proof and teh only proof would be via a prosecution etc.

Sorry Tadd am I missing something?    ' which is what i was saying about the OP how can the insurance company prove he was DUI without proof and the only proof would be via a prosecution etc.'

The breath test and the blood test evidence are the proof.  And probably Adam made some admissions to the police.

That evidence is available whether or not the police prosecute.   “Rather like a person doing a taxi run is invalidating her insurance (hire or reward).”  If they have an accident and the insurance comapny know, there would be no pay out.

Otherwise, a person could run away from Spain and avoid all financial liability for anything.

which is what i was saying about the OP how can the insurance company prove he was DUI without proof and teh only proof would be via a prosecution etc.

Hmm not so sure tadd, a prosecution would be the only route in criminal law but if there was compelling evidence ie blood/breath tests the insurance company may rely on that and just refuse the claim. As your article pointed out if the claimant was unhappy he could take it to the ombudsman (if in the UK) but as their case studies sugggest, they would be unlikely to uphold the complaint.

TeamGB you may well be right but how would the insurance company get the evidence

If the police submitted this evidence to the insurance company would they then be neglectful in not prosecuting an offence and what privacy would they be breaching?

An police accident report may mention a DUI test but no succesful prosecution = not guilty or no case to answer or not enough evidence to prosecute

If the police submitted this evidence to the insurance company would they then be neglectful in not prosecuting an offence and what privacy would they be breaching?  

How the insurance company got to know is neither here nor there, they have demanded the payment because Adam was DUI so they do know.  In any event they would look to get a copy of the police report to explain why their car is virtually writen off.

In Spain the Judge in the Court of First Instance (Juzgado de primera instancia) to whom the papers are submitted by the police, can choose to prosecute.  (rather like CPS in UK) .    Most case are considered too trivial to waste the court time so are not proceeded with. In this case maybe the court have, or will decide not to prosecute, but that does not alter the facts. And Adam, by his own admission has accepted he was DUI.

An police accident report may mention a DUI test but no successful prosecution = not guilty or no case to answer or not enough evidence to prosecute

Guilty or not guilty only relates to criminal cases. The claim for damages would be a civil court action where the burden of proof required is substantially less than in a criminal court.