Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think travel insurance should cover drunk injuries?

48 replies

FabiaCostello · 31/01/2018 10:39

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42878841

How can insurers know someone’s too drunk?

OP posts:
Original poster
FabiaCostello · 31/01/2018 11:09

The injury given here was a fall - sober people fall too!

OP posts:
araiwa · 31/01/2018 11:22

Yes

DGRossetti · 31/01/2018 11:26

How does this square with the suggestion on other threads that people who end up in A&E as a result of drink should pay for it ?

SlowlyShrinking · 31/01/2018 11:31

They could maybe give people the choice to pay a bit more on their premium if they want to include “drunk cover”

SilverDragonfly1 · 31/01/2018 11:32

I suppose the argument would be that they have paid for it, by getting insurance.

I don't have much time for people who have to drink heavily to enjoy themselves, but as OP says, sober people fall too and there is a big difference between someone who happened to have 2 glasses of wine with a meal tripping on a rucked up doormat and someone who has deliberately become very drunk tripping over thin air. BUT how big is the gulf between them if drunk person also tripped on a rucked doormat?

I think this in an interesting question!

SoupDragon · 31/01/2018 11:34

From the article an insurer sent the ombudsman medical records showing the emergency doctor diagnosed the injured man with "acute alcohol intoxication".
These records also said he had not been able to sign a form when he arrived at the hospital, and other records made during his ambulance trip suggested he had said he had been drinking all night.

I’m guessing that’s how they know.

rainbownights · 31/01/2018 11:36

My FIL, in his 60s, gets drunk, falls over and ends up in hospital. There they can't treat him until the alcohol level goes down. Took 24 hours once. He then sues the council for uneven pavements.

He would certainly take advantage of any money he might scam get if he were on holiday. If he doesn't kill himself first.

Surely you could only do this once though? Then they would know you had a drink problem.

ShotsFired · 31/01/2018 11:37

This is so subjective so as to be useless. What is 3 pints to you? To me? To a 22stone rugby prop forward?

But the overarching thing to ask yourself is whether any insurance company, on any policy, willingly pays out on a claim if there is even the minutest get-out clause for them.

And there's your answer.

1DAD2KIDS · 31/01/2018 11:41

YANBU, for many like my self holiday (without kids) is a time to let my hair down and have a fair few drinks.

Having said that there should be cheaper insurance for those that don't drink and more expensive insurance for the extra liability of drink. I think that's fair? Plus insurance police's should be clearer on whether they cover the person for being drunk or not rather than hide it in the small print

rainbownights · 31/01/2018 11:42

Wonder if they'll use social media and hotel bar bills to prove drinking to excess? FIL's brother posted pictures of FIL drunk every single day last time they went away. And MIL. Even at 9 am in the morning. That would go against any claim I expect lol!

PinkSparklyPussyCat · 31/01/2018 11:48

Having said that there should be cheaper insurance for those that don't drink and more expensive insurance for the extra liability of drink.

How would that work? I don't drink so wouldn't have to pay it. DH does drink but never gets drunk. Should he have to pay more?

Aridane · 31/01/2018 11:50

Yes, I do. I find it a bit embarrassing that a common behaviour on holiday can amount to cover being excluded. I say this as someone who doesn't drink and who works in insurance.

If such cover is going to be excluded, this needs to be flagged to people buying travel insurance

TinaMena · 31/01/2018 11:53

People need to start taking some responsibility for their own actions, rather than being looked after by everyone else when they let their hair down

specialsubject · 31/01/2018 11:57

Like all things in life, moderation. If you swill until you can't stand then you are a dirty skank who needs to take responsibility.

Those so pissed they think they can fly between balconies should not be insured. And should pay at a and e.

It is possible to drink without getting in such a state.

Original poster
FabiaCostello · 31/01/2018 12:00

But he had a head injury

The effects of that can mimic intoxication.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 31/01/2018 12:03

The effects of that can mimic intoxication.

As can MS. As many sufferers discover when they are accused of being drunk.

Faintlinesquints · 31/01/2018 12:05

I think there should be a premium that would cover 'drink related injuries' and it's up to you whether you take that extra cover or not. It is a difficult one.
I may be looking at it from a different angle, I'm disabled and sometimes my insurance is more than the cost of my flights, it's ridiculous. I don't choose to be disabled obvs, and it does put the cost of any insurance up (even if anything happened unrelated to my condition).
If you choose to drink to excess when you are on holiday you are at higher risk of accidents and injuries. It would have to be noted, as pp has said, by the hospital doctor as being alcohol related.

BarbaraofSevillle · 31/01/2018 12:06

As long as they apply it fairly, I don't see an issue - normal holiday drinking, slightly more than normal but not totally pissed and unconcious, and you have an accident - they should pay out.

I wouldn't agree with a 'we won't pay if you have had a drink at all/are over the drink drive limit but not parylitic' policy, because most people think it is reasonable to drink a bit more than usual/is healthy when on holiday.

I probably drink a bottle of wine a day while on holiday, but am never drunk as it is over a few hours but I wouldn't drink anywhere near that amount at home.

But for people who end up hospital needing to have stomach pumped, balcony jumping sort of level - maybe they shouldn't pay out. But then we risk people having to sell houses to pay the medical bills of them/young adult DCs who've had accidents while very pissed abroad.

Original poster
FabiaCostello · 31/01/2018 12:07

I’ve got a bit of a personal interest here as I had an accident abroad last year in which I fell and hurt my head. I’d been drinking but wasn’t drunk, and was knocked over by someone else. It was in a European city that hates tourists, and I was taken to hospital then treated brusquely like a drunk idiot and sent out with an ice-pack.

I barely remember the ambulance or hospital due to concussion but can’t imagine I was very logical. My friend said I was a mess.

Turns out I had broken my skull, should have been hospitalised and shouldn’t have been allowed to fly home.

People who have had a drink can have serious injuries too! Head injuries in particular can make you seem drunk.

OP posts:
WaxOnFeckOff · 31/01/2018 12:08

I've read the whole results of these on the Ombudsman website (I need to do this as part of my job).

There were many cases where they ruled on the side of the customer even though they had been drinking as it's reasonable to presume that most people will be drinking as part of their holiday.

They try to assess the likelihood that the "excessive" drinking caused the accident and what evidence exists to show that the person was impaired. In most cases actually they came down on the side of the person not the insurer. The case where blood levels taken and description from the hospital showed the person was severely inebriated was the exception.

Hereward1332 · 31/01/2018 12:09

If you read all the case studies that the BBC article was drawn from www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/143/143-case-studies.html it's pretty clear that the insurer needs to provide evidence that being too drunk caused the injury - like the patient being too drunk to sign his name.

The balance doesn't seem too harsh to me

Original poster
FabiaCostello · 31/01/2018 12:10

Oh and my discharge notes were very minimal but stated I was drunk.

OP posts:
ShotsFired · 31/01/2018 12:11

@Faintlinesquints I think there should be a premium that would cover 'drink related injuries' and it's up to you whether you take that extra cover or not.

@BarbaraofSevillle As long as they apply it fairly, I don't see an issue - normal holiday drinking, slightly more than normal but not totally pissed and unconcious, and you have an accident - they should pay out.

But who judges that? Barbara's bottle of wine in a day might completely knock someone else out. What if they are drugged unknowingly? What if it's the morning after? What if they are underage and drinking on the sneak/unknowingly? What if it's someone else being drunk that causes your injury? What if you didn't know they were drunk but agreed to get in a car with them? etc etc.

See what I mean? It's all completely subjective. No way can it be implemented fairly.

1DAD2KIDS · 31/01/2018 12:11

How would that work? I don't drink so wouldn't have to pay it. DH does drink but never gets drunk. Should he have to pay more? He has a drink, with the amount he drinks (despite not being drunk) on holiday would he then be perfectly fit to drive a car? Having just a few drinks still increases liability. And insurance policies are based on liability. My point is more why should people who don't drink at all pay for the extra liability of those that do?

For example say

£15 for no drinkers (insurance invalid if you have knowingly and conentailly had a drink)

£25 for insurance that covers you for having alcohol in your system.

Original poster
FabiaCostello · 31/01/2018 12:11

But if you have a head injury, surely that in itself could impact on you being able to sign your name/being conscious?

OP posts: