been charged absorberent rates, with no convictin yet

T

the king

Registered User
Messages
74
hi,
I have a question for a friend of mine.

Unfortunately and stupidy he got caught for drinking and driving. Anyway the court case has been adjourned on a few occassions, so he has not been convicted of any offence yet. The problem is that he decided to tell his insurance broker, that he had a case pending. His normal insurance for the year is €450, but since he told his insurance broker about this, the insurance broker is charging him €180 a month for his insurance, since he told him that he had a case pending in the courts.

Is this legal what the insurance broker is doing as he is not even convicted yet of drinking and driving.

Please advise.

THE KING
 
the king said:
hi,
i have a question for a friend of mine. unfortunately and stupidy he got caught for drinking and driving. anyway the court case has been adjourned on a few occassions, so he has not been convicted of any offence yet. the problem is that he decided to tell his insurance broker, that he had a case pending. his normal insurance for the year is 450 euros, but since he told his insurance broker about this, the insurance broker is charging him 180 euros a month for his insurance, since he told him that he had a case pending in the courts. is this legal what the insurance broker is doing as he is not even convicted yet of drinking and driving. please advise THE KING
Click to expand...

His blood was obviously too absorberent of alcohol...now he's being hit with exorbitant insurance payments.
Having a conviction or a conviction pending blacklists you insurance wise unfortunately.
 
Obviously where the insurance company is concerned they seem to ignore the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
 
Joe1234 said:
Obviously where the insurance company is concerned they seem to ignore the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
Click to expand...

I suppose as insurance is all about risk they're entitled to treat people who are arrested and charged with drink driving as a higher risk and levy them accordingly?
 
the king said:
Unfortunately and stupidy he got caught for drinking and driving.
Click to expand...

Joe1234 said:
Obviously where the insurance company is concerned they seem to ignore the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
Click to expand...

You said in your first message that he was drinking and driving.
So he was stopped and tested and was over the limit.

There is no innocent until proven guilty here. The only way I have seem people not being charged with drink driving when they have tested positive is to get off on a technicality. Hardly being proved innocent then. I've sure the insurnace companies that the same view.
 
thanks for yere replies,
but im still not convinced, he didnt have to tell the insurance company about it anyway or did he. what happens now if he decides to change insurance companies he wont have to tell them that he has a case pending in court or will he THE KING
 
Yes he will have to disclose all his skeletons particulary to a new company.As a previous poster said he's not innocent if his sample was over the limit..........thats it really!!
 
caff said:
Yes he will have to disclose all his skeletons particulary to a new company.As a previous poster said he's not innocent if his sample was over the limit..........thats it really!!
Click to expand...


I think everyone who drinks and drives should be marched over a cliff , but everyone is entitled to their day in court...


Espically after what we have seen in Donegal.....
 
the king said:
hi,
I have a question for a friend of mine.

Unfortunately and stupidy he got caught for drinking and driving. Anyway the court case has been adjourned on a few occassions, so he has not been convicted of any offence yet. The problem is that he decided to tell his insurance broker, that he had a case pending. His normal insurance for the year is €450, but since he told his insurance broker about this, the insurance broker is charging him €180 a month for his insurance, since he told him that he had a case pending in the courts.

Is this legal what the insurance broker is doing as he is not even convicted yet of drinking and driving.

Please advise.

THE KING
Click to expand...

Good job he did come clean. He is obliged to do so legally. Had he not then his cover would be voidable.
 
There is no innocent until proven guilty here. The only way I have seem people not being charged with drink driving when they have tested positive is to get off on a technicality. Hardly being proved innocent then. I've sure the insurnace companies that the same view.
Click to expand...

recently in Dundalk a person previously convicted of DD appealed and got off on a technicality. apparantly the garda 'formed' the opinion that he was drunk while observing him at the garda station. judge said that garda should have formed that opinion before observation began. that fact that he was brought to the station, breathalysed, over the limits etc was irrelevant.
some system.
 
Blinder said:
You said in your first message that he was drinking and driving.
So he was stopped and tested and was over the limit.

There is no innocent until proven guilty here. The only way I have seem people not being charged with drink driving when they have tested positive is to get off on a technicality. Hardly being proved innocent then. I've sure the insurnace companies that the same view.
Click to expand...

This is very misleading imo - it is not up to the guards to convict you. I am in no way condoning drink driving but if you are not convicted of the drink driving offence in a court, for whatever the reason ,then you don't have the conviction! AFAIK insurance companies will ask " have you been disqualified from driving, or have you any motor prosecutions pending". If you have been acquitted in court on the drink driving charge and don't have any prosecutions pending then the answer is " no ".
 
But he does have a Conviction Pending which he is obliged to disclose. If he does get off on a technicality (which I hope he doesn't as he deserves it) then the insurance co will probably have to pay him back the extra they charged him. Roughly a drink driving conviction will get you a 100% loading on your insurance. That's what you get for being stupid.
 
Once the blood alcohol is medically or forensically over the limit -thats as good as a conviction. Its very hard to argue probable cause or mitigating circumstances for having alcohol in you blood....its not like you did not know it was there or question how it got there! ;-)
The only way out is for the Garda not to turn up in court to give evidence of arrest-but I do not think they have to anymore..for these cases!
 
Luternau said:
Once the blood alcohol is medically or forensically over the limit -thats as good as a conviction.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You can have all the medical evidence you like but all it takes for the case to be thrown out is for the guards not to follow correct procedure or to make a simple error like get the name of the hinterland where the offence was alleged to have taken place incorrect . It's a regular occurence where I'm living that drink driving cases are dismissed on technicalities.
 
demoivre said:
all it takes for the case to be thrown out is for the guards not to follow correct procedure or to make a simple error like get the name of the hinterland where the offence was alleged to have taken place incorrect . It's a regular occurence where I'm living that drink driving cases are dismissed on technicalities.
Click to expand...

Lucky you to live in an area that the local garda cant find their way around in the dark.
Cant see how placing a person at a different place can reduce their level of intoxication...so what if its a diff place...if the person is stopped while driving under the influence of alcohol, its not a GPS system that they need for their defense, its a miracle they need.....
Another case of the laws an ass.
 
Luternau said:
if the person is stopped while driving under the influence of alcohol, its not a GPS system that they need for their defense, its a miracle they need.....
Click to expand...

No it's a solicitor who understands the legal system/process a lot better than you do that the defendant needs - whether the law is an ass or not is a completely different matter, that's an issue you need to take up with the legislators.
 
demoivre said:
No it's a solicitor who understands the legal system/process a lot better than you do that the defendant needs - whether the law is an ass or not is a completely different matter, that's an issue you need to take up with the legislators.
Click to expand...

I take your point on getting a solicitor, would not go to court without one myself. Still there is no defense for drink driving. Getting off on a technicality-such as a geographic mistake on the summons does not mean that the person was within the legal limit. In saying that I am aware that they can challenge the procedure of the test, and the accuracy of the blood tests etc., al pretty normal defense stuff. How can a solicitor argue mitigating circumastances-for driving under the influence?
The law remains an ass if people are getting off cos somebody puts the wrong townland on the charge sheet.
 
I think that you are being hard done by. You are innocent until proven guilty. Is he sure that the insurer is charging this money or the broker? i have never come across a case where the insurer charged a penal loading PRE conviction. I can accept a loading of up to 200% POST conviction, but not PRE conviction. Can your post the identity of the INSURER and BROKER?

I would take the matter up with the MD of the insurer, name shoudl be in Policy booklet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top