CA DUI Info

[halik]

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I have a friend who was recently involved in an auto accident, then was given a DUI. There were no other cars involved (he hit the center divider on the freeway and then went under the guard rail). There were 3 other people in the car, all are fine with just minor cuts and bruises. Basically I have 2 questions:

Does anyone know if he can be charged with something other than DUI because he damaged public property or because he was involved in an accident while under the influence?

He has been told by several people that insurance will not cover the damage to his car because he was under the influence, is this true?

Thanks for any help you can give, I do appreciate it.

a) DUI is a dui, but they could charge him with pubic endangerment, reckless driving etc. If hes got a good lawyer, noen of the other will stick. However if he got brethalyzed, hell go down for DUI. You can't argue about .13 BAC, as its already weight adjusted (bigger people have more blood). Not to mention he did hit the divider...

b) Depends on the insurance policy, he has to call his agent and ask. If i remember correctly, my policy is void if im commiting a felony or something

Either or drunk driving is pretty stupid. The guy is lucky he didnt kill anyone. Hell probably lose his drivers license for a while and wont be afford insurance for a long time. How old is he btw?

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I have a friend who was recently involved in an auto accident, then was given a DUI. There were no other cars involved (he hit the center divider on the freeway and then went under the guard rail). There were 3 other people in the car, all are fine with just minor cuts and bruises. Basically I have 2 questions:

Does anyone know if he can be charged with something other than DUI because he damaged public property or because he was involved in an accident while under the influence?

He has been told by several people that insurance will not cover the damage to his car because he was under the influence, is this true?

Thanks for any help you can give, I do appreciate it.

Answer to question #1:
Yes, he could be charged with damaging property, but because he may actually have damaged property, not just because he was DUI.

Answer to question #2:
Absolutely false. He may not be convered for other reasons, but not simply because he was DUI.

Hopefully, this will be a good learning experience for your friend.

Follow-up to #2: As I said before, CA law requires insurance companies to pay liability claims (I think) but it does not require them to pay for comprability claims, i.e. repairs made to your friend's car. They can deny the claim if they want to, provided your friend didn't specifically get coverage that says they can't.

 

[Mill]

I have only one thing to add to this thread: Tell your friend to get a lawyer and a good one at that. He blew way over the limit so he has his work cut out for him. This is a VERY big deal for him, and getting a DUI is NOT something to play off. He needs to stay sober, get a good lawyer, and comply with everything his lawyer and the courts tell him to do. He's not going to get off easy, but everyone makes mistakes no matter how foolish they may be. He's got to take responsibility and take care of his problem.

 

[IamElectro]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
His insurance probably will still cover him for liability, since I think they're required to by CA law, but I know his insurance rates are going to skyrocket. In all liklihood he won't be able to afford it. And that's justified I think if he was really drinking and driving. If you're talking about his insurance covering him for comp, as in repairing his car, then there's no way in hell they will. It was entirely his fault the moment he got behind the wheel whilst liquored up.

So was he actually DUI? I'm assuming yes.

My Ex girlfriends dad totaled his new Jeep, and at the time he was found to be intoxicated and charged with a DUI. The insurance paid for the vehicle and dropped him. Incidentaly they did tell him the only reason they were paying was the bank holding the loan would sue them otherwise. Last I remember he had to buy a old @ss Subaru to drive as long as it was insured it seperately from the other vehicles in the house. He was and probably is still not supposed to drive any of the other vehicles. The 86 Subaru was running him almost 4000 per year to insure with just liability and this is in WV.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: IamElectro

Originally posted by: yukichigai
His insurance probably will still cover him for liability, since I think they're required to by CA law, but I know his insurance rates are going to skyrocket. In all liklihood he won't be able to afford it. And that's justified I think if he was really drinking and driving. If you're talking about his insurance covering him for comp, as in repairing his car, then there's no way in hell they will. It was entirely his fault the moment he got behind the wheel whilst liquored up.

So was he actually DUI? I'm assuming yes.

My Ex girlfriends dad totaled his new Jeep, and at the time he was found to be intoxicated and charged with a DUI. The insurance paid for the vehicle and dropped him. Incidentaly they did tell him the only reason they were paying was the bank holding the loan would sue them otherwise. Last I remember he had to buy a old @ss Subaru to drive as long as it was insured it seperately from the other vehicles in the house. He was and probably is still not supposed to drive any of the other vehicles. The 86 Subaru was running him almost 4000 per year to insure with just liability and this is in WV.

Good point. There are other circumstances which may force the insurance company to pay for a comp claim. More than likely though they won't.

It will probably be cheaper for your friend -- literally -- to rent cabs everywhere and walk instead of driving and paying for insurance.

 

[AlienCraft]

He'll get a bill from Cal Trans or the local Municipality for repairing the guardrails, If there was any overtime involved he'll get whammed for that. His insurance won't matter much, because his license is TOAST. If you're a real good friend , you'll drive him to the AA meetings he'll be attending, the miscellaneous trips back and forth to court, and then anywhere he needs to go for the next 6-8 months depending on how long it takes to come to court.
His insurance will be toast for years. He'll be on a driving probation for years.
His insurance may limit the amount they pay for his friends. They should sue him till money flows like the tears, other parents shed that night for their children who DIDN't survive THEIR encounters with a "drunk friend".

Friends don't let friends drive drunk, at all , ever.

 

[VTboy]

One time i was on the freeway and i fell a sleep. YES I fell asleep, not only that it was in the middle of a hot sumer day. So I crashed into the center divider as a result. Thank god all that happen was a few bruses and a cut. Sadly the car was totaled and i did damage the center divider. This might seem strange but the city never made me or my insurance company pay to fix the divider, so they might not do anything about the damaged center divider.

On a side note, After the officer arived he asked me was on any drugs, or drinking and I just said no which as the truth. I didn't have to go through any test at all to prove I wasn't drunk. I told him the truth that I fell asleep and he beleived me. I guess your friend had bad luck because he had to do all of those test.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Follow-up to #2: As I said before, CA law requires insurance companies to pay liability claims (I think) but it does not require them to pay for comprability claims, i.e. repairs made to your friend's car. They can deny the claim if they want to, provided your friend didn't specifically get coverage that says they can't.

Sorry, no. You and Halik are wrong. His insurance cannot deny his claim, not liability, collision, or comprehensive, simply because he was DUI at the time. They will, however, most likely cancel his policy after they have paid out, and (if he can get any insurance) his premiums are about ready to hit the moon for the next few years.

Like I said earlier, hopefully he learns from this.

 

[VTboy]

I should point out that the center divider had minimal damage though in my accident, because it was actually being protected by bush. The center divider was actually inside of a bush. The Bush though lost a few branches as my car rammed into it. I have no idea if the city actually fixed the dent in the center divider.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Follow-up to #2: As I said before, CA law requires insurance companies to pay liability claims (I think) but it does not require them to pay for comprability claims, i.e. repairs made to your friend's car. They can deny the claim if they want to, provided your friend didn't specifically get coverage that says they can't.

Sorry, no. You and Halik are wrong. His insurance cannot deny his claim, not liability, collision, or comprehensive, simply because he was DUI at the time. They will, however, most likely cancel his policy after they have paid out, and (if he can get any insurance) his premiums are about ready to hit the moon for the next few years.

Like I said earlier, hopefully he learns from this.

The insurance claim denial letter I found in my car, left there by the previous owner, tells me otherwise. She was in a similar situation, minus the DUI, and they denied her claim.

 

[VTboy]

I am also from California. So why did they do a DUI test on your friend. Was he reeking of booze.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
Look I'm not trying to turn this into a public debate about Drunk Driving, I am just trying to gain some knowledge and information. Hate him if you want, disrespect him if you want, but if you know of any links or info that would be helpful please forward them over.

I said before I respect your opinions about him being an asshole and all. As far as him hitting the center divider, he was cut off by another vehicle and it was either that or cause a worse accident.

Thanks to anyone willing to help.

Here's a good link. 😀

- M4H

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Follow-up to #2: As I said before, CA law requires insurance companies to pay liability claims (I think) but it does not require them to pay for comprability claims, i.e. repairs made to your friend's car. They can deny the claim if they want to, provided your friend didn't specifically get coverage that says they can't.

Sorry, no. You and Halik are wrong. His insurance cannot deny his claim, not liability, collision, or comprehensive, simply because he was DUI at the time. They will, however, most likely cancel his policy after they have paid out, and (if he can get any insurance) his premiums are about ready to hit the moon for the next few years.

Like I said earlier, hopefully he learns from this.

The insurance claim denial letter I found in my car, left there by the previous owner, tells me otherwise. She was in a similar situation, minus the DUI, and they denied her claim.

Yeah,
im pretty sure they will not follow thru with the collision claim due to the violation of the terms of the agreement (im not positive, but i remeber seeing a clause about DUI and other stuff in the legal agreement on my policy)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The insurance claim denial letter I found in my car, left there by the previous owner, tells me otherwise. She was in a similar situation, minus the DUI, and they denied her claim.

So what reason was given then?

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: VTboy
I am also from California. So why did they do a DUI test on your friend. Was he reeking of booze.

Cops are allowed to test DUI without any form of probable cause. More than likely they smelled it, but they don't have to justify it.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The insurance claim denial letter I found in my car, left there by the previous owner, tells me otherwise. She was in a similar situation, minus the DUI, and they denied her claim.

So what reason was given then?

A lack of any evidence of mechanical failure or hazardous roadway conditions. It actually said:

We have determined that in the matter of your collision with blah blah blah:
Other parties were 0.00% at fault
And you were 100.00% at fault

I kept wondering if for any claim they'd ever decided anybody was 73.46% at fault. 😛

P.S. Like I said, the situation was almost the same. She did hit a guardrail, though it was head-on and it wrecked the front end of the car.

 

[Spencer278]

I don't have anything useful to add other then I think the punishment for get a DUI should be that the person can no longer drive a car/truck for 3 years and instead they are required to drive a motorcycle. That way should they choose to be so stupid again we can be sure they will kill them self.

 

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
He had a .13 BAC, so there is evidence he was over the legal limit, which is .08 in CA.

Those of you who are pissed that he was driving under the influence, I respect your opinion, but I'm sure most people have done it before and .13 is not that high of a BAC especially for a 240 lb experienced drinker. He did pass all field sobriety tests, just didn't pass the breathalizer.

He is my best friend and I just want to help him out, so any info would be much appreciated.

I haven't done it before.

Thats why he said MOST you tool.

 

[VTboy]

I think in california it is different; they still have to pay it. I was 100% at fault in my accident and my insurance company paid for it, or maybe she purchased some cheaper partial coverage insurance so they only cover it if some other party is at fault.

 

[VTboy]

I think in california it is different; they still have to pay it. I was 100% at fault in my accident and my insurance company paid for it, or maybe she purchased some cheaper partial coverage insurance so they only cover it if some other party is at fault.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: VTboy
I am also from California. So why did they do a DUI test on your friend. Was he reeking of booze.

Cops are allowed to test DUI without any form of probable cause. More than likely they smelled it, but they don't have to justify it.

Of course they have to have probable cause...otherwise it is a violation of your civil rights.

The few that we have left in the states.

 

[przero]

That link was especially helpful.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The insurance claim denial letter I found in my car, left there by the previous owner, tells me otherwise. She was in a similar situation, minus the DUI, and they denied her claim.

So what reason was given then?

A lack of any evidence of mechanical failure or hazardous roadway conditions. It actually said:

We have determined that in the matter of your collision with blah blah blah:
Other parties were 0.00% at fault
And you were 100.00% at fault

I kept wondering if for any claim they'd ever decided anybody was 73.46% at fault. 😛

Her claim was denied because she was found at fault and she probably had liability-only coverage. Not apples to apples here. If whiteboy81's friend has liability-only coverage, then they would deny his claim on that basis alone, regardless of whether he was DUI or not. If he has full coverage (comprehensive and collision), then he should be covered.

Sheez.... tell him just to call his agent.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: VTboy
I am also from California. So why did they do a DUI test on your friend. Was he reeking of booze.

Cops are allowed to test DUI without any form of probable cause. More than likely they smelled it, but they don't have to justify it.

Of course they have to have probable cause...otherwise it is a violation of your civil rights.

The few that we have left in the states.

No, they have to have probable cause to pull you over. Once you've been pulled over they can test you for DUI. A seatbelt violation can lead to a DUI test.

I do think hitting a center divider may have constituted probable cause though. 😛

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The insurance claim denial letter I found in my car, left there by the previous owner, tells me otherwise. She was in a similar situation, minus the DUI, and they denied her claim.

So what reason was given then?

A lack of any evidence of mechanical failure or hazardous roadway conditions. It actually said:

We have determined that in the matter of your collision with blah blah blah:
Other parties were 0.00% at fault
And you were 100.00% at fault

I kept wondering if for any claim they'd ever decided anybody was 73.46% at fault. 😛

Her claim was denied because she was found at fault and she probably had liability-only coverage. Not apples to apples here. If whiteboy81's friend has liability-only coverage, then they would deny his claim on that basis alone, regardless of whether he was DUI or not. If he has full coverage (comprehensive and collision), then he should be covered.

Sheez.... tell him just to call his agent.

The letter briefly outlined her plan. It included comp.