car accident insurance question

[Sheepshanks]

finchy90 said:

my sister has just renewed her insurance this month. and nothing has been mentioned.

That sounds right - the claim is nothing to do with them. Unless someone has told them, they probably won't even know.

[Sheepshanks]

LoonR1 said:

Those that don't claim tend to be where the damage they've incurred is less than their excess so it makes any claim trickier for them as it won't really involve their insurer.

Even if they used their insurers recommended repairer would they generally still be required to pay their excess and reclaim it?

Touch wood, only non-fault claim we've needed to make in years I put through our insurer, LV=, and they waived our excess even when though we chose the repairer.

[LoonR1]

Sheepshanks said:

Even if they used their insurers recommended repairer would they generally still be required to pay their excess and reclaim it?

Touch wood, only non-fault claim we've needed to make in years I put through our insurer, LV=, and they waived our excess even when though we chose the repairer.

In a clear non-fault, and / or where the other side has admitted liability then probably not, but that would be where the damage exceeds the excess. Where the damage is below the excess, then the insurer technically has no loss to cover and shouldn't be involved in the claim. We all self insure the first bit of any loss via our excess.

[Sheepshanks]

LoonR1 said:

We all self insure the first bit of any loss via our excess.

Thanks - I hate excesses and always try and go for £0 excess. I know it was £0 on one of our cars but I think there's a compulsory £100 on the other one.

O/T Here's a question / suggestion for you: As mentioned, I hate excesses. It's bad enough to have to make a claim without having to contribute towards it. If I claim, I'd like it to be paid in full.

However I'd have no problem with a minimum claim value - in practice if the car had £200 worth of damage I probably wouldn't claim anyway.

Would it be feasible to have no excess but have a minimum claim value?

[LoonR1]

Sheepshanks said:

Thanks - I hate excesses and always try and go for £0 excess. I know it was £0 on one of our cars but I think there's a compulsory £100 on the other one.

O/T Here's a question / suggestion for you: As mentioned, I hate excesses. It's bad enough to have to make a claim without having to contribute towards it. If I claim, I'd like it to be paid in full.

However I'd have no problem with a minimum claim value - in practice if the car had £200 worth of damage I probably wouldn't claim anyway.

Would it be feasible to have no excess but have a minimum claim value?

Unlikely. Who sets the cost of the repair? I could build any claim up to any figure I wanted without too much effort.

[CanAm]

Sheepshanks said:

Would it be feasible to have no excess but have a minimum claim value?

In theory, yes; it's called a franchise. ie claims under £x are not covered, but claims over £x are paid in full. But I worked in commercial property insurance, not motor.

[sim72]

LoonR1 said:

sim72 said:

On your average shed, a cracked bumper or dent in a panel can be enough to write the car off. Not to mention that even a non-fault claim will affect your premiums.

Myth and one that I'm sick of seeing repeated on insurance threads.

Not every insurer loads for non fault claims

Alright, "may" affect your premiums, then. But how many claimants know whether their insurers will or not, especially as some of the major companies are amongst those that do load for non-fault?

[LoonR1]

sim72 said:

Alright, "may" affect your premiums, then. But how many claimants know whether their insurers will or not, especially as some of the major companies are amongst those that do load for non-fault?

Probably very few, just as they know very little about a lot of other things on their policies. Buying on price tends to leave large holes in their knowledge, although whether insurers load or not is moot if they buy on price, as even loaded it may be still be cheaper, if it's dearer, then they buy the cheaper policy and come on here and whinge.

[finchy90]

update to this, just received a letter from my insurers saying the claim has been settled. the 3rd party never claimed on the insurance. also in the letter it states: The no claims discount is not prejudiced.

does this mean my no claims hasn't been affected.

cheers, steve

[TwigtheWonderkid]

finchy90 said:

update to this, just received a letter from my insurers saying the claim has been settled. the 3rd party never claimed on the insurance. also in the letter it states: The no claims discount is not prejudiced.

does this mean my no claims hasn't been affected.

cheers, steve

That's right. You paid to fix your sister's car as the cover was tpo, and the tp you hit hasn't claimed. So no payments made by the insurers so bonus unaffected.

[Sheepshanks]

Doesn't mean the base premium won't go up though.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

Doesn't mean the base premium won't go up though.

It may do, it may not, depends on the insurer.

If I were the insurer, I would up the base premium. Nearly everyone over 25 gets DOC cover, but most people will never use it. The fact that I now know this particular policyholder does use it would warrant an increase if I were the underwriter.

But it's all done by machines now. Is the computer programmed to take it into account.