Insurance & Non Drinkers / Pioneers

Volvoboy

Does anybody know of any insurances that offer a discount for pioneers i.e, non drinkers.

Sorry for misleading, title



-VB-

DanThe

I remember going to the local priest with the form to sign to declare I was a non drinker.
It was for my first PMPA car policy about 12 years ago, was worth 10% off so 200 notes old money, I'm gonna go to hell for lying to a priest though:D

So you could try AXA, but I'm not sure if they still do it.

Guy:Incognito

DanThe wrote:

I'm gonna go to hell for lying to a priest though

`


Dont worry bout it you can appologise to all the priests personally while your there.



A few of the insurers have a section to tick if your a non drinker on the online forms. I did one the othe day, cant remember which one exactly. axa springs to mind.

ninty9er

AXA asked me, but I told the truth, not as if i'm goin to drive after a drink or 10 but all the same "utmost good faith" and "null and void" 2 legal principles around insurance that spring to mind

Volvoboy

ninty9er wrote:

but all the same "utmost good faith" and "null and void" 2 legal principles around insurance that spring to mind

Well, i AM a pioneer and i DON'T drink never had.


-VB-

Seth Brundle

Volvoboy wrote:

Does anybody know of any insurances that offer a discount for pioneers i.e, non drinkers.

As said a few companys ask. IMO its an irrelevant question.
As long as you are driving within the law then its none of their business!

Volvoboy

kbannon wrote:

Insurance & Non Drinkers / Pioneers

Ok We'll try it your way KB.




-VB-

Seth Brundle

no problem - I felt the new title made more sense!

ninty9er

Fair enough if you're a non drinker. but I'm with KB on this one

Volvoboy

Well ins companys ask you everything else, Do not suffer from any disabilities or medical conditions which must be reported to the driver licensing authority. just thought that ins would ask somthing about the persons drinking habits or not as the case, just to keep premiums down, just a thought anywho..




-VB-

dudara

My mother is a Pioneer and regularly gets their magazine. I remember years ago that there used to be ads in it for car insurance aimed directly at Pioneers. I don't know if this is still the case though.

It BeeMee

From the AXA website:

We may offer a non-drinker discount if you and anyone else who might drive your car have not taken any alcohol at all for a period of at least a year or more. You must also intend to continue abstaining from alcohol on a permanent basis. We may ask you to provide references confirming this from other people.

(my emphasis)

So not only do you have to prove yourself to be a pioneer, but any other named driver on your insurance.

I wonder how much the discount is worth these days?


Slightly OT: sister is a pioneer, got breathalysed over Christmas. She said to the Guard "I'm a pioneer" to which the reply was "You're the 10th I've met tonight....."

Henry Ford III

There was a co. called Ansvar Ireland who insured non drinkers only.

Maybe still around?

mikedragon32

I had an AXA policy and a non-drinkers discount when I first started driving. At the time, I hadn't had an alcoholic drink for over two years.

I had to get a priest or lawyer (possibly might have been others who could sign) to sign my form stating that they knew I hadn't had a drink and didn't intend to.

I've since started drinking again and am now with Allianz.

seamus

I know this is going to sound like a stupid question.

Life insurance companies have statistics which say "Smokers are x% more likely to die at a younger age, or run into health complications which adversely affect their ability to earn."

Do car insurers have statistics which say, "Drinkers are x% more likely to be involved in a car accident than non-drinkers"?

On the face of it, it looks like a silly comment. But there are plenty of people who would be "non-drinkers", who may have a drink or two at Christmas or on birthdays and not at any other time. When they drink, they are just as likely to be involved in a car accident as a "drinker". Perhaps.
A person however, is either a smoker or a non-smoker. Smoking a single cigarette when you're out pissed doesn't instantly make more likely to die early or get health complications.

Henry Ford III

seamus wrote:

I know this is going to sound like a stupid question.

Life insurance companies have statistics which say "Smokers are x% more likely to die at a younger age, or run into health complications which adversely affect their ability to earn."

Do car insurers have statistics which say, "Drinkers are x% more likely to be involved in a car accident than non-drinkers"?

On the face of it, it looks like a silly comment. But there are plenty of people who would be "non-drinkers", who may have a drink or two at Christmas or on birthdays and not at any other time. When they drink, they are just as likely to be involved in a car accident as a "drinker". Perhaps.
A person however, is either a smoker or a non-smoker. Smoking a single cigarette when you're out pissed doesn't instantly make more likely to die early or get health complications.

The non drinkers you describe above are infact drinkers seamus albeit infrequent ones.

Smoking the odd cigarette when pissed still means you are a smoker.

There is no grey area.

An insurance co. wouldn't pay a claim to an non drinker (who got a discount for declaring themselves so) if they crashed drunk.

Likewise I've seen more than one life ins. claim rejected on the grounds of blatant non disclosure. Non smokers get up to 50% discount on certain life policies. It's not difficult to prove somebody did smoke. The evidence stays in the body for months.

Hotblack Desiato

Henry Ford III wrote:

An insurance co. wouldn't pay a claim to an non drinker (who got a discount for declaring themselves so) if they crashed drunk.

Shouldn't they refuse any claims from drivers who crash drunk?

(of course, any third parties would still have to be compensated.)

It's not difficult to prove somebody did smoke. The evidence stays in the body for months.

Not so for drink though.

Vegeta

I'm a non drinker, haven't tasted alcahol in 7 years and never intend to again. wonder if I can profit on that.

It is only worth 65 euro if you're a non drinker on AXAs web site. That's pretty sh1t

Henry Ford III

ninja900 wrote:

Shouldn't they refuse any claims from drivers who crash drunk?

(of course, any third parties would still have to be compensated.)


Not so for drink though.

No. Why would they?

Hotblack Desiato

So you think it's perfectly ok for some guy with comprehensive insurance to get drunk off his face, whack his car into a wall and make all the other policyholders pay for the damage he caused to his own car?

Didn't the IIF say a while back that they were only going to pay out to 3rd parties in drink-drive cases?

Henry Ford III

It's not my opinion.

I know the 3rd party claim would be covered, and tbh it wouldn't bother me if the comp. part of any claim was d/q.

rubadub

Henry Ford III wrote:

No. Why would they?

Because they were performing an illegal and irresponsible act at the time. I would have expected it to be in most policies. Bit extreme but it is sort of like claiming money on your house burning down, why did it happen? "oh I had a bonfire going in the kitchen at the time". I am not sure if it is illegal but I would not like to see an insurance company paying out on a car crashed by a blindfolded person, both are irresponsible and unacceptable, legal or not.

If the alleged pioneer crashed, was breathalyzed and was under the limit but WAS drinking, they should not get anything. An admitted drinker in the same case should.

And as for priests & lawyers! be low on my list of trustworthy people... They should be open to medical testing at any time, if they have nothing to fear and money to save they would have no problem with this.