Liability insurance question

L

l2iceman

Well-known member
hey guys, so just a question regarding liability...if you were to damage city property at fault, so say ran into a light pole or rail or something, and police say it was your fault (drunk driving), does liability insurance cover the damages to the city property? or no?

someone I know is has to owe the city money for drunk driving into a light pole...I thought liability covered, but in this case, he says it didn't cover him, so just trying to see if he's lying or not lol
 
Most insurance companies will deny liability coverage in the event the driver was charged (and convicted) of drunk driving. There is a concept of absolute liability for the insurance company, but even when they have to pay those amounts they will try and recoup them from the drunk driver.

When you drink most of your insurance coverage evaporates as well.
 
It's with hesitation I answer this question, I have a problem with people who drive drunk. But, your friend is lucky, the insurer is absolutely liable for his stupidity and hence they will pay for the damages to the pole.

If your friend killed someone, other than himself, or caused someone else serious damages, the insurer may take an off coverage position in which case they could drop the liability limits down to $200 000 and your friend would be personally responsible for anything over $200 000. I hope the pole isn't more than $200 000.

As for recovering money from the actual drunk driver after they pay for the pole this is EXTREMELY unlikely. There are provisions in the insurance act for this (See Section 258 as I recall). It's complicated and would require the claimant (i.e. the owner of the pole) to sue your friend, get a judgement, have that satisfied by the insurer who in turn could then collect from yuor friend for what they paid out.

So, I realise that's a complicated answer. The short and simple answer is your friends insurance company will pay for the pole.

After that they will likely cancel your friends insurance policy or surcharge it about 1 million percent.

Your friend may soon want to consider a bus pass and save us all in case he / she decides to drive drunk again.
 
Well he isn't my friend lol my gf's friend's bf...they think he is hiding something bc he keeps avoiding why he has to pay the city for damages if he had insurance....yes he was convicted of drunk driving as far as I know....he can't get his license back until he has paid the city back...which is quite a bit
 
It appears that he was wrong, drove impaired and was convicted of the offence so he needs to learn from it, never repeat it and move on.
Simply put it is time to own up to his actions and pay up.
Otherwise we pay for his illegal mistakes and our premiums go even higher.
 
I took out a fire hydrant once and got the bill for it. I passed the bill on to my insurer and never heard back. I wasn't DUI though.

I thought insurance didn't have to cough up if the vehicle was being used in a criminal event. If DUI and dangerous driving are criminal charges would the insurer hopefully pay out to not-at-faults and then go after the vehicle owner for reimbursement?
 
nobbie48 said:
I took out a fire hydrant once and got the bill for it. I passed the bill on to my insurer and never heard back. I wasn't DUI though.

I thought insurance didn't have to cough up if the vehicle was being used in a criminal event. If DUI and dangerous driving are criminal charges would the insurer hopefully pay out to not-at-faults and then go after the vehicle owner for reimbursement?
Click to expand...

Read my post above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom