RTA settlement proposals by Norwich Union
Discussion
Norwich Union wants to speed up/fast track the process of settling RTA claims and has put forward a manifesto for claims settlement. Amongst many points raised and suggestions put forward, one of the things that interested me most was their suggestion that prior to the involvement of Solicitors, that the innocent party and the wrongdoer should discuss liability to see if it can be decided on an amicable basis. This of course goes against the general rule of thumb that it should be left up to the insurers to decide liability and no comment should be made by the insured's.
They further suggested that in the majority of very small cases an apology and some flowers or chocolates should be offered by the wrongdoer as compensation. They didn't say who should pay for this though, whether it be them as insurers or the insured person themselves.
In injury cases over £1000 they are suggesting that liability should be agreed by discussion in order to avoid the After the event (ATE) insurance (TAG, Claims Direct) companies.
Question, would PHers be comfortable in deciding liability matters themselves without resorting to their insurers to deal and would you be happy buying an innocent party chocolates/flowers if you were at fault?
They further suggested that in the majority of very small cases an apology and some flowers or chocolates should be offered by the wrongdoer as compensation. They didn't say who should pay for this though, whether it be them as insurers or the insured person themselves.
In injury cases over £1000 they are suggesting that liability should be agreed by discussion in order to avoid the After the event (ATE) insurance (TAG, Claims Direct) companies.
Question, would PHers be comfortable in deciding liability matters themselves without resorting to their insurers to deal and would you be happy buying an innocent party chocolates/flowers if you were at fault?
I was at fault, hit another car. Admitted it at the time, and my insurance company paid up to me within a few days.
For some reason they kept the file open with NU (the other party) for 2 years afterwards. Since liability had been admitted, surely it would make sense to close the file and pay, rather than be subject to the ongoing investigation and admin costs??
For some reason they kept the file open with NU (the other party) for 2 years afterwards. Since liability had been admitted, surely it would make sense to close the file and pay, rather than be subject to the ongoing investigation and admin costs??
Wedg1e,
Very valid point but thankfully the majority of drivers are insured, so the proposals are aimed squarely at insured motorists. The MIB is here to deal with the uninsured/untraced motorists.
In my experience and I have not run any stats on this, so it's a quesstimate, i'd say in maybe 25% of claims I deal with, the guilty party admits liability.
Very valid point but thankfully the majority of drivers are insured, so the proposals are aimed squarely at insured motorists. The MIB is here to deal with the uninsured/untraced motorists.
In my experience and I have not run any stats on this, so it's a quesstimate, i'd say in maybe 25% of claims I deal with, the guilty party admits liability.
mcflurry said:
I was at fault, hit another car. Admitted it at the time, and my insurance company paid up to me within a few days.
For some reason they kept the file open with NU (the other party) for 2 years afterwards. Since liability had been admitted, surely it would make sense to close the file and pay, rather than be subject to the ongoing investigation and admin costs??
There was probably no personal injury involved and therefore no ongoing Solicitor costs.
The problem here may be you didn't offer to buy chocolates?
In essence, its not a bad idea. I would assume that some cases could get solved quickly and easily. But, having been subjected to this already, I suspect that most people will simply lie. In fact its openly condoned - ambulance chasers for example. You are expected to lie, you are expected to exaggerate and you are expected to put a few extra injuries on a claim....
I suffered this a few years ago when my car was smashed into by a Volvo. I was stationary at the time but the other driver then went on to say that I had reversed into her at speed - which I didnt..... People lie to get themselves out of grief. It would never work I am afraid.
I suffered this a few years ago when my car was smashed into by a Volvo. I was stationary at the time but the other driver then went on to say that I had reversed into her at speed - which I didnt..... People lie to get themselves out of grief. It would never work I am afraid.
anniesdad said:
I was at fault, hit another car. Admitted it at the time, and my insurance company paid up to me within a few days.
For some reason they kept the file open with NU (the other party) for 2 years afterwards. Since liability had been admitted, surely it would make sense to close the file and pay, rather than be subject to the ongoing investigation and admin costs??
There was probably no personal injury involved and therefore no ongoing Solicitor costs.
The problem here may be you didn't offer to buy chocolates?
It was a 19 year old lad in a 4 hour old Festa.
I am sure he would have prefered a new hat
I think they are just trying to reduce costs, not improve the service.
I have a friend who was fairly seriously injured whilst a passenger in someone else's car which left the road. 15 months later, and despite no dispute over liability, she is having to use a solicitor to pursue the claim for personal injuries , loss of earnings, and other consequential losses/costs.
I would suggest that the insurance industry would do it's own image a lot of good by ensuring it's members paid thier claims quickly (or at least made quick interim settlements) and sent HER a bunch of flowers, instead of passing the buck onto thier own Policyholders to do it for them.
[/rantover]
>> Edited by corozin on Friday 17th December 17:31
I have a friend who was fairly seriously injured whilst a passenger in someone else's car which left the road. 15 months later, and despite no dispute over liability, she is having to use a solicitor to pursue the claim for personal injuries , loss of earnings, and other consequential losses/costs.
I would suggest that the insurance industry would do it's own image a lot of good by ensuring it's members paid thier claims quickly (or at least made quick interim settlements) and sent HER a bunch of flowers, instead of passing the buck onto thier own Policyholders to do it for them.
[/rantover]
>> Edited by corozin on Friday 17th December 17:31
off_again said:
In essence, its not a bad idea. I would assume that some cases could get solved quickly and easily. But, having been subjected to this already, I suspect that most people will simply lie. In fact its openly condoned - ambulance chasers for example. You are expected to lie, you are expected to exaggerate and you are expected to put a few extra injuries on a claim....
I suffered this a few years ago when my car was smashed into by a Volvo. I was stationary at the time but the other driver then went on to say that I had reversed into her at speed - which I didnt..... People lie to get themselves out of grief. It would never work I am afraid.
Off_again - spot on mate. Agree totally.
heebeegeetee said:
Why can't we do as they do in Europe? Everyone has a standard claims form (which must be carried in car) and when both parties agree on circumstances both fill in forms and sign and exchange copies.
Far too simple for us...
I am told that in Germany, if an accident occurs which causes any damage what so ever, both cars have to be left exactly where they are and the Polizi called. The cops look at the circumstances and talk to the drivers (and witnesses) and make a judgement as to who was at fault. They then give written notice of their judgement (i.e. a handwritten note) to both drivers, which are later presented to their insurers, and there is no need for the later discussion about who was at fault. Moving either vehicle before the police have been to the scene is a criminal offence.
Very clean-cut, very simple, very much too much to expect from the powers-that-be in the UK.
Oli.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff