Drinking and driving voids your cover, not just your excess
People assume a drink driving claim means a bigger excess or a higher premium next year. It usually means no cover at all, for your car and for the damage you caused to everybody else, which is the part that turns one bad decision into a debt you carry for years. It is the leading reason vehicle claims that reached the Ombud were rejected.
Pocket Nerd editorial · Checked 28 September 2026 · 6 min read
It is not an excess. It is no cover.
The common assumption is that a drink driving claim costs you a bigger excess, or a higher premium next year. That is not what happens.
Driving under the influence is an exclusion, not a loading. When an exclusion applies, the policy does not respond at all. Not a reduced payout, not a higher excess. Nothing.
It is the leading reason given for rejecting vehicle claims among those that reached the National Financial Ombud, which tells you both that it happens often and that people are surprised enough by it to complain.
The part that actually ruins people
Losing your own car is the small half. The exclusion also removes your third party cover, which is the part that pays for the damage you caused to everyone else.
Their car, their medical costs, their loss of income. Those become yours personally, and they are not capped by what your car was worth. One evening turns into a debt somebody carries for years, and that is the reason this page exists.
Four things people get wrong about it
That it only applies if you are convicted
A policy exclusion and a criminal conviction are separate things with separate standards of proof. An insurer can decline a claim on the evidence available to it without waiting for a court, and frequently does.
That being under the limit means covered
Many wordings exclude driving while under the influence, or while ability is impaired, rather than referring to a specific reading at all. Some go further and exclude refusing a test. Being under a legal threshold does not automatically mean the exclusion does not apply.
That it only affects the driver
If you lent your car to somebody who had been drinking, it is your policy that fails to respond and your exposure to the other party. Whose fault it was morally is not the question the policy asks.
That declining the breath test protects you
Refusing a test is itself an offence, and a number of policies name refusal as grounds to decline a claim. It is not the way out people assume it is.
Why we are not printing the legal limit
It is published, it is easy to find, and putting it here would make this page worse.
A number invites arithmetic. Somebody reads a threshold, thinks about their body weight and what they have had, and decides they are probably fine. That calculation is unreliable for reasons nobody standing in a parking lot can account for, and it is the wrong question anyway.
The right question is whether your policy responds, and for that the threshold is beside the point. Many wordings turn on being under the influence or impaired rather than on a reading. You can be below a legal limit and still be arguing with your insurer about whether you were fit to drive.
There is no version of this where being close to a line is a good position to be in.
The practical version
Not a lecture. Just the arrangements that make it a non-issue.
Decide how you are getting home before you go out, not after.
If you have been drinking, do not lend your car to somebody who has been drinking either. It is still your policy.
An e-hailing trip costs less than an excess, and enormously less than an uninsured claim.
If something has already happened, tell your insurer the truth. A non-disclosure discovered later is worse than the original problem.
For what else gets vehicle claims turned down, and what to do if yours is, the Ombud record is here.
Questions people ask
- Does car insurance cover you if you were drinking?
- Generally no. Driving under the influence is a policy exclusion rather than a loading, which means the policy does not respond at all: no payout for your car and, more seriously, no third party cover for the damage you caused to others. It is the leading reason given for rejecting vehicle claims that reached the National Financial Ombud.
- Does the insurer have to wait for a conviction to reject the claim?
- No. A policy exclusion and a criminal conviction are separate matters with separate standards of proof. An insurer can decline a claim on the evidence available to it without waiting for a court outcome.
- What if I was under the legal limit?
- It may not help. Many policy wordings exclude driving while under the influence, or while ability is impaired, rather than referring to a specific reading. Being below a legal threshold does not automatically mean the exclusion does not apply, and you can end up arguing about whether you were fit to drive.
- What happens to the other driver if my claim is rejected?
- They claim against you personally. Their vehicle damage, medical costs and loss of income are not capped by what your car was worth, and without third party cover those amounts are yours to find. This is usually far larger than losing your own vehicle.
Now go and check what you are paying
Knowing how the cover works is most of it. The rest is not overpaying for it. You choose which insurers get your details, and nobody else does.
Where this comes from
That driving under the influence is the leading reason given for rejecting vehicle claims that reached the Ombud: COVER magazine, reporting the National Financial Ombud 2025 annual report, 2025. Checked 28 September 2026. It measures complaints that reached the Ombud rather than all rejections.
We do not publish the legal blood alcohol limit on this page. It is easy to find and it is the most misreadable number we could put here, because it invites working out how much you can drink. The point that matters is that the policy exclusion does not depend on it.
Your policy wording sets out the exclusion that applies to you. It is the authority on your own cover.