<p>There’s a high profile case here in which a young guy borrowed his parents’ Mercedes, got drunk and then crashed into the home of an unrelated elderly woman. The house, which was probably very nice and valuable, is now being condemned. I was just wonder if insurance companies have to or do pay for damaged incurred when someone chooses to drive drunk. Anyone know?</p>
<p>Driving a car into a home usually shouldn’t cause it to be condemned, although it might need to be repaired. </p>
<p>Generally insurance excludes driving under the influence claims.</p>
<p>The house is being condemned. That is not the question, it has already been decided. The car came in one side and out the other.</p>
<p>Are you asking about the repair cost on the dui driver’s mercedes or the homeowner’s damages that they caused? </p>
<p>I would think the driver’s liability policy will cover damage they cause regardless of the DUI, I don’t know for sure about the damage to the policy holder’s property. That would depend how their policy was written.</p>
<p>I’m wondering about the elderly lady’s house. She went to bed with a valuable house and woke up with a stranger’s car having gone through it and having it condemned. I’m just wondering who would pay for that.</p>
<p>Wouldnt her ins have to pay for it, as it would if a neighbors tree fell on her house?</p>
<p>The driver’s liability portion of their policy will cover the house damage up to the amount of their policy. If the damage is more than that she will have to sue them (the car owner) for the difference and hope that they are worth enough to cover it. Terrible situation for all involved!</p>
<p>If the car owners also have a PUP (Personal Umbrella Policy) that will help with covering the claim amount over and above the liability limit on their auto policy.</p>
<p>I would imagine that her insurance is going to go after his insurance for the property loss. If he doesn’t have enough insurance to cover that, then maybe her insurance will pick up the difference? </p>
<p>If she has a mortgage on the property, the mortgage holder is going to insist that the home be rebuilt.</p>
<p>I don’t know. That’s what I’m curious about since it was the result of an illegal act. Many homeowners policies have all sorts of disclaimers and limits of liability. A house in an upscale area of Long Island can really be pricy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Her property insurance would pay for the repairs / replacement of the house. Then her insurance company would sue the owners of the vehicle as well as the driver (and their insurance company) for any damages. The auto insurance policy would pay first (if allowed), and then the family’s umbrella insurance would kick in (again, if allowed), and then the family would be personally liable for the remainder.</p>
<p>In any event, many people do not carry high enough property damage insurance for the auto insurance to pay very much. Most people carry around $25k, which won’t pay for very much. Mine is much higher but still wouldn’t cover a house. The umbrella insurance would pay for the bulk. Again, it all may be for not since the incident occured under influence.</p>
<p>It’s a good reminder why a homeowner needs a homeowners insurance policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Insurance won’t pay for the purchase price of the house, it’ll simply pay for the cost of repairs / rebuilding.</p>
<p>The reason that a LI house is pricey is the value of the land/area. The actual costs of constructing/reconstructing a house don’t vary as much around the country as the value of land does.</p>
<p>Still, it’s going to be a lot of money. It is expensive just to tear down a condemned building. I can’t imagine how stressful this must have been for the elderly woman to lose the home she’s probably lived in for many years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, but only the “property liability” and not the “injury liability”. The big difference is the limits often are different on the two, with the property liability being much lower than injury liability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A homeowners insurance policy should not have all sorts of disclaimers and limits of liability. Liabilty should be limited when the homeowner causes the damage, but generally be unlimited in all other respects.</p>
<p>For example, arson and burglary are both illegal acts, but you expect insurance to pay for that. Earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes are acts of God, but you need an insurance policy that will cover those to rebuild your house should you live in an area prone to those. </p>
<p>Flooding is typically excluded, but you can buy flood insurance from the US Government if you live in a flood zone.</p>
<p>You need an insurance policy that will cover the damage to your house, otherwise, it’s not the right insurance policy.</p>
<p>
The difference is that there is car insurance that will also come into play here, which is not the case with regard to arson or burglary. Also, burglary wouldn’t lead to the condemnation of a house.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Homeowners insurance should be the primary insurance, and then the homeowners insurance company can attempt to collect from other insurance companies if it is able to. However, the homeowners insurance policy needs to pay for the cost of rebuilding - as well as temporary housing - even if they are not able to collect from the person causing the damage.</p>
<p>Zoosermom,</p>
<p>I am assuming that the incident you are referring to is the one in Huntington where a 21 year-old girl was driving her boyfriend’s parents Mercedes, and crashed through the home of an elderly woman this past Monday? The pictures of this are incredible. This young woman, whose blood alcohol level at the scene of the accident was reportledly 4X the legal limit, literally plowed through this home and ended up in the backyard of the house. It is a miracle that she, her passenger and the occupants of the home weren’t killed! Today’s paper is reporting that the driver claims to have had “3 beers” and that the car’s power steering “got stuck,” causing her to crash. Hopefully, when she was transported to the hospital, her blood alcohol level was taken, as I understand the on the scene breathalyzer test is not admissable in NY courts.
At any rate, I dont’ believe that her being drunk, if this is the case (innocent till proven guilty, right?) should have any bearing on insurance payment for damages. But as Engineer4life has stated, the limits to property damage under the auto insurance policy may make it necessary to collect from the homeowner’s policy. I feel very sorry for the homeowner, a 90+ year-old woman, who will have to deal with moving from her home and the insurance nightmare that will most likely follow. She’s probably still in a state of shock!</p>
<p>I just did some reading and apparently the distinction is that the act of hitting something, even though drunk, was technically accidental. It seems that if someone intentionally drove through someone else’s house that wouldn’t be covered because it was an intentional act. Who knew?</p>
<p>Peachy267, the poor lady will have no choice but to move since the house was condemned. It’s such a shame, but thank goodness no one was killed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends what kind of policy you have. Ours is very specific…it pays REPLACEMENT costs for the rebuilding and all of the contents of the house. In our case, it would be well in excess of our purchase price for our home.</p>
<p>I hope she has a good homeowners policy. It will be easier for her to deal with her own company and let them deal with the subrogation process, if applicable. I’ve never seen a homeowners policy that doesn’t include a damage caused by vehicles peril, so her company could handle it. The other consideration is what the policy limits are on the vehicle involved. The minimum limits are so ridiculously low in many states and people often, carelessly, opt for the minimum.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, only collision coverage may be impacted by a DUI situation, not the damage that is caused to others.</p>