Will Car insurance cover ABH using a car as a weapon?

[Zstratts8]

My friend was run over some months back and has sustained injuries.
The person responsible has plead guilty to ABH and has not yet been sentenced.
The person responsible has no money to her name, but the car was insured at the time.
There has been some argument from my friends legal cover on her own car insurance as to if the abusers insurance would even be liable due to it being criminal behaviour.
Does anyone know if driving a car on a public road and using that car as a weapon means your insurance company cannot pay out injuries to the victims?

TIA

Many insurance policies have an exclusion for deliberate acts by the driver. However, if there is such an exclusion in the driver's insurance policy, the claim would be dealt with by the Motor Insurers' Bureau, so your friend should receive compensation regardless.

Thanks for your reply.
The only thing online we can find about all of this is a page from a solicitors that talks about s145 of the Road Traffic Act. Bristol Alliance Ltd Partnership v Williams.
This suggests the insurers might be liable, even with a deliberate acts clause.
We cannot find anything about the MIB to say they would deal with this.
Would they class her as an uninsured driver due to this?
Do they take the same approach as a regular car insurer regarding claims, or would any pay out be minimised due to it being a catchall?
I know my friend will most likely be eligible for CICA if all else fails, but again this is minimal compared to a likely insurance award.

Personally i cannot understand how the law allows someone to intentionally run another over, and keep their driving licence. Whilst she has not been sentenced, nothing my friend has been told by the police or witness service suggests a driving licence will be revoked. The guilty party meanwhile is driving everywhere despite admitting to running over my friend.
Reading the sentencing Guidelines for ABH it seems revoking a licence is not in a magistrates remit unless a specific driving offence has been charged.

It should pay out for your friend but will not compensate for damages to the car. Like drink driving I think. Dh was hit by a drunk driver and the drunks insurance paid out immediately. Most straight forward claim ever. But the drunks car was a write off and they didn’t get money for that.

I’m no expert btw but can’t see why it would be different to drink driving

From what we can figure drink driving would be an actual driving charge. DR10 Therefore it counts, and would also be an automatic ban.
The prosecution dropped the dangerous driving charge DD40 in favour of a guilty plea of a criminal charge for ABH.
From what i can piece together from the web, if the DD40 had of gone ahead the insurance would have paid her out but car insurers do not cover criminal charges.
I cant see how this matters, as the guilty party was driving her car and has admitted intentionally driving at her in a fit of rage as she crossed the street, running over her.
The car was being driven, but was used intentionally to commit an assault.

Unfathomable how this woman still is driving on the roads.

If the driver's insurance doesn't cover the claim, the driver would be classed as uninsured so the MIB would provide compensation.