Caught out by insurer - help?
Discussion
martinbiz said:
LoonR1 said:
Whereas with TPFT or TPO policies you have no reason to ring your insurer, as your damage is not covered on your policy.
Yes you have, you are still obliged to inform them irrespective of whether your policy allows you to claim for your damage or not.So, tell me what the impact is if you fail in your "obligations"
Read any insurance contract. You are obliged to try and mitigate your ins co's losses wherever possible and that means, among other things reporting it where an incident has occurred that may have resulted in damage to a 3rd parties property (not just cars) in a timely manner or they can and may well come after you for losses incurred because of said failure to report.
martinbiz said:
Read any insurance contract. You are obliged to try and mitigate your ins co's losses wherever possible and that means, among other things reporting it where an incident has occurred that may have resulted in damage to a 3rd parties property (not just cars) in a timely manner or they can and may well come after you for losses incurred because of said failure to report.
Well done for just expanding on your earlier post. Now answer my question:What are the consequences to you of not advising them of an accident?
Ahimoth said:
I was rear-ended at low speed in September. The other party immediately took responsibility and paid for a new rear bumper (not just cosmetic, but garage confirmed there was no other damage), and I never reported it to insurers. This thread worries me a little.
Why? Because someone who doesn't understand it, is quoting a piece out of the T&Cs as if not doing it is the end of the world? You should have declared it, but nothing will come from not having done so for a claim like that. Much better that you worry though and jump to the end of the world scenario, than look at all posts.
Oh and how does the OPs situation compare to yours in anyway?
LoonR1 said:
What are the consequences to you of not advising them of an accident?
Serious question Loon:6 months ago, whilst our car was stationary in a car park a dozy cow drove into it.
They accepted liability, and said they'd pay cash, but when the quote came through to replace a panel on a brand new Merc they understandably baulked and went through their insurance.
To avoid all the credit hire scenario, I dealt direct with their insurance company, who were very good as of course they authorised the hire car etc directly.
The cost of the repair was just shy of £2000 despite the fact that the impact was literally at less than walking pace - more of a 'push' than a hit.
Do I need to declare this when applying for insurance?
If you follow the unbelievably compliant people on here (who all obviously drive exactly on the speed limit amd never over it) then you should.
Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
LoonR1 said:
martinbiz said:
Read any insurance contract. You are obliged to try and mitigate your ins co's losses wherever possible and that means, among other things reporting it where an incident has occurred that may have resulted in damage to a 3rd parties property (not just cars) in a timely manner or they can and may well come after you for losses incurred because of said failure to report.
Well done for just expanding on your earlier post. Now answer my question:What are the consequences to you of not advising them of an accident?
In 50% of your posts you seem to delight in ranting about how you would like things to be and citing anecdotal, off topic and legally incorrect examples rather than what is fact and what the law says.
Where, for example in an earlier post you got the idea that I suggested you should report it if you drive into a kerb and damaged your own wheel, God knows.
We'll be having Freeman of the Land drivel soon.
LoonR1 said:
If you follow the unbelievably compliant people on here (who all obviously drive exactly on the speed limit amd never over it) then you should.
Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
You know how fond you are of shooting down the "Not-at-fault will increase your premium" claims? If that's the case, then there's nothing to lose from declaring, right?Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
TooMany2cvs said:
You know how fond you are of shooting down the "Not-at-fault will increase your premium" claims? If that's the case, then there's nothing to lose from declaring, right?
Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
What he is fond of shooting down is the stupid claim that a non fault accident will definitely increase your premium. Which is balls. He has never said it would never increase your premium. Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
LoonR1 said:
If you follow the unbelievably compliant people on here (who all obviously drive exactly on the speed limit amd never over it) then you should.
Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
Cheers Loon.Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
That's what I thought.
However, the situation that the OP mentions is the exact scenario that niggles in my mind. In the end, when we applied a few days ago, we declared it.
Next time I might not. In terms of the consequences though - what would likely happen if I did not declare and the insurance company came calling at renewal time, or in the event of an accident?
martinbiz said:
I'm not sure what part of my post is hard for you to understand, the consequences are there to see. You lay yourself open to your ins co trying to recover any extra costs they may have incurred because you failed to report, how much more of a consequence do you need?
In 50% of your posts you seem to delight in ranting about how you would like things to be and citing anecdotal, off topic and legally incorrect examples rather than what is fact and what the law says.
Where, for example in an earlier post you got the idea that I suggested you should report it if you drive into a kerb and damaged your own wheel, God knows.
We'll be having Freeman of the Land drivel soon.
Freeman on the Land. really? I'll start with your bit about your assertion that an insurer will "try to recover any extra costs they may have incurred because you failed to report". In the past 10 years that I've been heading up motor claims operations for a couple of the largest UK insurers, we have never rejected a policyholder claim for own damage or any TP claim due to late notification. We regularly get first notifications of claims right at the cusp of limitation (3 years for injury, 6 for property) and have yet to reject one for this alone, we really would be on sticky ground there. We might knock back a customer's claim for their damage if they repair it and then send us the bill many months / years after paying it, but that's more likely to be for fraud reasons, than contractual disputes. One constant trait in all of these is that whenever we get TP first of a claim, then it is always a fault claim. Many of them are claims where our customer has buried their head in the sand and hoped it will go away and either fixed their own car out of their own pocket, or left the damage in place.In 50% of your posts you seem to delight in ranting about how you would like things to be and citing anecdotal, off topic and legally incorrect examples rather than what is fact and what the law says.
Where, for example in an earlier post you got the idea that I suggested you should report it if you drive into a kerb and damaged your own wheel, God knows.
We'll be having Freeman of the Land drivel soon.
We have NEVER gone back to any customer and asked them to pay the "extra costs", maybe you could let me know how you'd define them? Would we ask for Credit Hire in full? What if there were LPPs applicable, would that be our customer's fault for not letting us know, or would it be our fault for operational failings? Maybe the CHO was paying games and we can avoid them completely? Is a legal bill for advice received an additional cost? Or is it an acceptable cost and actually we're saving by getting in and making offers without the need for legal advice? What about medicals? Or rehab costs? Are they acceptable or should I be back charging them? Can I charge for incurred operational costs in handlign the claim? In fact as these claims tend to be crstallised in terms of indemnity cost, then the operational cost is minimal. Do I offset the operational cost off the indemnity cost to reduce this alleged custoemr liability fo the increased costs? It'd be good if you could show me where the contract allows for an insurer (and I'll take any insurer) to ask a policyholder to pay the additional costs please. Even better would be one, just one genuine example where this has happened (it can't be due to fraud either) with supporting documentation.
The kerb and stonechip examples were purely examples where in your scenario you'd insist on reporting them, as per the T&Cs of your insurance contract, most wouldn't and nor would an insurer expect you to declare or inform them.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TooMany2cvs said:
You know how fond you are of shooting down the "Not-at-fault will increase your premium" claims? If that's the case, then there's nothing to lose from declaring, right?
Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
What he is fond of shooting down is the stupid claim that a non fault accident will definitely increase your premium. Which is balls. He has never said it would never increase your premium. Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
If Loon's right, in that it doesn't always, then there's little risk in declaring - but if it might, big risk in not declaring.
TooMany2cvs said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TooMany2cvs said:
You know how fond you are of shooting down the "Not-at-fault will increase your premium" claims? If that's the case, then there's nothing to lose from declaring, right?
Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
What he is fond of shooting down is the stupid claim that a non fault accident will definitely increase your premium. Which is balls. He has never said it would never increase your premium. Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
If Loon's right, in that it doesn't always, then there's little risk in declaring - but if it might, big risk in not declaring.
Here is what I am saying for clarity:
Q: Will a non-fault claim ALWAYS increase my premium when declared at renewal?
A: No. With some insurers, the premium may rise, with others, it may stay the same amd with others it may reduce.
I have NEVER and will NEVER state that it won't increase your premium EVER.
TooMany2cvs said:
Now, what if the insurer thinks it IS relevant, and does find out about a non-declared incident...?
That's why I'd declare it. Declaring it is either going to have no impact on the premium, in which case I've done myself no harm by declaring it, or some impact on the premium, which implies that the insurance company think it's relevant to my price and so would not be pleased if they found out about it later. I don't feel very comfortable taking that risk.Perhaps I'm being paranoid though. Working in the industry, Loon is better placed than I am to assess that risk - both in terms of how likely it is they would ever find out (not very, he seems to suggest) and how they might react if they did find out. I'd guess there's a spectrum of reactions, ranging from, "You should have told us that from the outset. It increases your premium by x so you'll have to pay that now" through to "We're going to report you to the police for insurance fraud and we're going to cancel your insurance and we're going to tell all the other insurance companies not to go near you ever cos you're a lying, cheating bar steward and we're going to chase you in the courts for millions of pounds of our costs and take your house and make you bankrupt" or whatever this week's PH worst case scaremonger option is.
JustinP1 said:
LoonR1 said:
If you follow the unbelievably compliant people on here (who all obviously drive exactly on the speed limit amd never over it) then you should.
Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
Cheers Loon.Would I? Not a chance. It's not recorded anywhere and even the other insurer won't tie their claims system for a third party claim to their underwriting records for any future quotes. Insurers do not register TP claims on the Claims Underwirting Database.
I would declare if I claim on my insurance.
That's what I thought.
However, the situation that the OP mentions is the exact scenario that niggles in my mind. In the end, when we applied a few days ago, we declared it.
Next time I might not. In terms of the consequences though - what would likely happen if I did not declare and the insurance company came calling at renewal time, or in the event of an accident?
The reason, for this is that the potential impact is very low. An insurer can only really decline a claim due to non-disclosure at proposal stage if the reason for the claim is linked to the non-disclosure. So tell them the car has a tracker and when stolen admit that it hasn't and you're in bother. Tell them the same and drive into a wall and it's not grounds to repudiate the claim on its own. However, if that insurer can prove that having a tracker was the thing that induced them into agreeing to insure you and without the tracker they wouldn't then they can cancel the policy ab initio and return all premiums and the policy never existed in law. This is much more difficult if the wall is damaged and owned by someone else, or if it's a car / person that you hit.
If you happen to be insured with an insurer that would charge more had you declared the non-fault then they're at most likely to charge that additional premium back to you (although how they'd ever find out is beyond me). Even with proportional claims payments being possible under the Consumer Insurance Act, it gets tricky to reduce payouts, especially when the repair is done at their repairer and potentially inflated under Coles.
TooMany2cvs said:
Exactly. If it _never_ did (which it definitely can, ime), then there's a case for it not being relevant. If it _might_ increase it, then it's relevant information, and should be declared.
If Loon's right, in that it doesn't always, then there's little risk in declaring - but if it might, big risk in not declaring.
Let me have a go at your logic for a different scenario.If Loon's right, in that it doesn't always, then there's little risk in declaring - but if it might, big risk in not declaring.
The IRA were terrorists
All IRA members are Catholics
All Catholics are terrorists
See the flaw in the logic?
How about?
All cognac is brandy
Therefore all brandy is cognac
LoonR1 said:
I have NEVER and will NEVER state that it won't increase your premium EVER.
OK, fine. So we're all agreed that some insurers will increase your premium or even decline to quote because of a not-at-fault claim in the past, yes?If that's so, then that claim history is relevant information which you should be fully open about, right?
Utmost good faith, an' all?
SK425 said:
Declaring it is either going to have no impact on the premium, in which case I've done myself no harm by declaring it, or some impact on the premium, which implies that the insurance company think it's relevant to my price and so would not be pleased if they found out about it later. I don't feel very comfortable taking that risk.
Exactly this.If you're saying "Well, I wouldn't declare it, because they aren't likely to find out", then how far can that logic be stretched to fibbing on a proposal form?
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 9th February 14:53
TooMany2cvs said:
LoonR1 said:
I have NEVER and will NEVER state that it won't increase your premium EVER.
OK, fine. So we're all agreed that some insurers will increase your premium or even decline to quote because of a not-at-fault claim in the past, yes?If that's so, then that claim history is relevant information which you should be fully open about, right?
Utmost good faith, an' all?
SK425 said:
Declaring it is either going to have no impact on the premium, in which case I've done myself no harm by declaring it, or some impact on the premium, which implies that the insurance company think it's relevant to my price and so would not be pleased if they found out about it later. I don't feel very comfortable taking that risk.
Exactly this.If you're saying "Well, I wouldn't declare it, because they aren't likely to find out", then how far can that logic be stretched to fibbing on a proposal form?
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 9th February 14:53
Utmost Good Faith is pretty well dead as a concept in Personal Lines Motor, since the introduction of the Consumer Insurance Act in early 2013. Insurers have to ask specific questions. They are, but if the answer is restricted to a specific set of answers (picklists) and your scenario isnt in there, then youve not doen any wrong in not declaring.
I'm not tellign nyone what to do though, I'm giving you the facts and reality and whatever decision anyone makes is theres to make themselves. hiding behind "I though I was doing what Loon off the internet said was OK" isn't necessarily going to work. I know exactly what I mean, but despite me thinking that it's clear, others are muddying the waters with their flawed logic leaps.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff