Drunk a accident caused? Insurers rags or

Posted on 27-05-2015 at 15:05 by MauritsH – 37 Comments”

Imagine: you’re drunk, get nevertheless of the car and caused damage. You would expect for insurers, the finger gets in the way of compensation. That appears, however, not to be so.

More than half of the insurers shows just the damage of a third party to reimburse you. Only a small part has indeed a so-called alcoholclausule included in the terms and conditions of the insurance, which briefly stated means that you’ll meet others damage just be allowed to dock if it turns out that there is alcohol in the game.

A much larger share of the insurers has such a clause is not included in the policy and pays so well just. For that pinch of tomatenrood communist commentary: the damage we will refund you actually with z’n all. Fortunately, the solution is near.

It was for the insurers, namely, difficult to by the police, made reports/trial-tickets (apparently it should be both), so as to determine whether the perpetrator is indeed a drink in had. This situation changed on 1 may, and so, insurers are able to now easily find out whether there is alcohol in the game was.

However, there are also parties who suspect that insurers are just too much trouble to find (sometimes relatively small) amounts on the brokkenpiloot to stories. Sounds logical, because if the costs do not outweigh the amount of damage it is better for everyone to make the case for what he is. But a preventive effect is there, of course not, and that’s ultimately where the co has to be turning. To clarify: this story is about damage to vehicles of others. Damage to the own vehicle is to get.

Photo via autojunk

PS: the insurers that such a clause does not apply are:

Aegon, Allianz, Bruns in Brink, Budgio, Delta Lloyd, EAG, Gouda, ING, Interpolis, Klaverblad, Click & Go, Kruidvat, Lancyr, London, Nationale Nederlanden, Reaal, SNS, VVAA, Whoosh, Witgeld and ZLM.