Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PH XKR said:
As it is non-fault you are entitled to claim for increased premiums, as you have evidence of an additional 3k this year you could taper it so for the next 5 years claim for an additional 10k.
Job done. Twig the wonder spark or LoonR1 will come along to probably dispel this but they have a vested interest.
I will dispel it not out of vested interest, as I have none, but because it's just not true. Job done. Twig the wonder spark or LoonR1 will come along to probably dispel this but they have a vested interest.
I defy you to cite any case where a non fault accident victim has successfully recovered increased insurance premiums.
Excess yes, car hire yes, injury yes, increased premium on their own insurance.....no.
PH XKR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PH XKR said:
As it is non-fault you are entitled to claim for increased premiums, as you have evidence of an additional 3k this year you could taper it so for the next 5 years claim for an additional 10k.
Job done. Twig the wonder spark or LoonR1 will come along to probably dispel this but they have a vested interest.
I will dispel it not out of vested interest, as I have none, but because it's just not true. Job done. Twig the wonder spark or LoonR1 will come along to probably dispel this but they have a vested interest.
I defy you to cite any case where a non fault accident victim has successfully recovered increased insurance premiums.
Excess yes, car hire yes, injury yes, increased premium on their own insurance.....no.
Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You said it!
Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
Are you a paid up member of the Flat Earth Society, or just monumentally arrogant and stupid?Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
He said that's what happened. Why did he say it...... because it did!
Just because it doesn't fit in with your notions of what can and cannot take place doesn't mean it didn't happen. Calling people idiots and liars won't make you look clever.
Edited by Richie Slow on Monday 18th April 14:30
Richie Slow said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You said it!
Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
Are you a paid up member of the Flat Earth Society, or just monumentally arrogant and stupid?Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
He said that's what happened. Why did he say it...... because it did!
Just because it doesn't fit in with your notions of what can and cannot take place doesn't mean it didn't happen. Calling people idiots and liars won't make you look clever.
Edited by Richie Slow on Monday 18th April 14:30
Perhaps we could have the letter from the tp insurers posted up confirming they paying his increased future premiums.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Richie Slow said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You said it!
Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
Are you a paid up member of the Flat Earth Society, or just monumentally arrogant and stupid?Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
He said that's what happened. Why did he say it...... because it did!
Just because it doesn't fit in with your notions of what can and cannot take place doesn't mean it didn't happen. Calling people idiots and liars won't make you look clever.
Edited by Richie Slow on Monday 18th April 14:30
Perhaps we could have the letter from the tp insurers posted up confirming they paying his increased future premiums.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yeah, because no one on t'internet makes stuff up to win an argument.
Perhaps we could have the letter from the tp insurers posted up confirming they paying his increased future premiums.
You know you've been called monumentally stupid twice in this thread? I'm not sure why you don't give it up and take some maths and reality lessons.Perhaps we could have the letter from the tp insurers posted up confirming they paying his increased future premiums.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PH XKR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PH XKR said:
As it is non-fault you are entitled to claim for increased premiums, as you have evidence of an additional 3k this year you could taper it so for the next 5 years claim for an additional 10k.
Job done. Twig the wonder spark or LoonR1 will come along to probably dispel this but they have a vested interest.
I will dispel it not out of vested interest, as I have none, but because it's just not true. Job done. Twig the wonder spark or LoonR1 will come along to probably dispel this but they have a vested interest.
I defy you to cite any case where a non fault accident victim has successfully recovered increased insurance premiums.
Excess yes, car hire yes, injury yes, increased premium on their own insurance.....no.
Courts have ruled on this. If a tp insurer actually paid you money due to an increase in your own premiums, then you were very fortunate to have had your case handled by a complete idiot. But I'm favouring the "you're making it up" option.
Then again, previously I had been told on this very forum I couldnt claim for something it would be rejected then won the claim. Guess I was lying then?
I have no vested interest to make things up to win an argument on the internet. You however do have a vested interest and cannot cope when the people you call on here idiots are able to counter your self fulfilling lies with their own experience.
Its a bit difficult to provide paperwork for a 16 year old accident that was settled 15 years ago but if you wish, I can provide details of myself, the 3rd party, the dates and you can see if you an somehow magic the details back from the past.
Its a bit difficult to provide paperwork for a 16 year old accident that was settled 15 years ago but if you wish, I can provide details of myself, the 3rd party, the dates and you can see if you an somehow magic the details back from the past.
Calling people idiots doesn't really add much to the argument.
And in fairness a £470k doesn't exactly sound normal! (I hope you are ok - even after all this time...!)
The simple point where I agree with Twig is that just because you don't have the imagination to understand WHY a non-fault claim makes you more risky doesn't stop non-fault claimants being more risky in general.
Lastly, given that insurance is compulsory, suggesting someone has "vested interests" is farcical!
And in fairness a £470k doesn't exactly sound normal! (I hope you are ok - even after all this time...!)
The simple point where I agree with Twig is that just because you don't have the imagination to understand WHY a non-fault claim makes you more risky doesn't stop non-fault claimants being more risky in general.
Lastly, given that insurance is compulsory, suggesting someone has "vested interests" is farcical!
£470K sounds like a global settlement ie not itemised heads of claim, quantified to a specific value, good way that lawyers can agree settlements without getting dragged in to specific arguments on specific heads of claim. I agree with Twig insurance premium rises are not reclaimable from at fault parties, you'd probably have to go back to them every year for a few years for the added premium effect. This can often of course be negated by switching insurance company which we should all consider doing annually.
Given that in a non-fault collision, the not at fault driver is entitled to damages in tort (i.e being put into as good a position had the accident not occurred) I cannot see why some people are asserting that a not at fault driver cannot claim for estimated increased cost in insurance premium. I expect the issue is that if you settle the non-fault accident through your own insurer, they will settle with you in accordance with the terms of your insurance contract and then make a subrogated claim against the at fault insurer.
If you deal directly with the at fault insurer, I expect you have more leeway to negotiate for increase premiums as you do not have a contract with the other party's insurer. Depending on the circumstances re: damage to your car and the need for a replacement vehicle during repairs, you may have some decent leverage.
If you deal directly with the at fault insurer, I expect you have more leeway to negotiate for increase premiums as you do not have a contract with the other party's insurer. Depending on the circumstances re: damage to your car and the need for a replacement vehicle during repairs, you may have some decent leverage.
If increased premiums due to a non fault claim are recoverable from the tp, can someone please tell me how these situations would be dealt with. In each case, imagine I've been involved in a non fault accident:
1. My insurers charge me no extra. But 2 years later I buy a Ferrari and my insurers won't cover it. So I switch and my new insurers do want a higher premium due to past non fault claim.
2. My insurers charge me no extra. However 2 yrs later I'm involved in a fault claim. They then charge me extra, not because of either claim in isolation, but because I've had 2 claims, and anyone with 2 claims, fault or non fault, pays more.
3. I have 2 non fault claims in 2 yrs. No extra to pay. However, a third non fault accident and suddenly I have to pay extra, as 3 non fault claims trigger the charge.
4. For some weird reason, the quote is lower following a non fault claim than with no claim at all. Do I owe the tp that money I'm saving?
5. I have a non fault claim in my mum's Micra. But it means my own insurers won't cover me at all when I tell them about my non fault claim and I have to sell my Lamborghini as they were the only insurer who would cover me at my age and my area on such a car. So no extra premium is paid but I've been forced to change my car. How much can I claim, if anything?
Those are 5 examples off the top of my head. How are they dealt with?
1. My insurers charge me no extra. But 2 years later I buy a Ferrari and my insurers won't cover it. So I switch and my new insurers do want a higher premium due to past non fault claim.
2. My insurers charge me no extra. However 2 yrs later I'm involved in a fault claim. They then charge me extra, not because of either claim in isolation, but because I've had 2 claims, and anyone with 2 claims, fault or non fault, pays more.
3. I have 2 non fault claims in 2 yrs. No extra to pay. However, a third non fault accident and suddenly I have to pay extra, as 3 non fault claims trigger the charge.
4. For some weird reason, the quote is lower following a non fault claim than with no claim at all. Do I owe the tp that money I'm saving?
5. I have a non fault claim in my mum's Micra. But it means my own insurers won't cover me at all when I tell them about my non fault claim and I have to sell my Lamborghini as they were the only insurer who would cover me at my age and my area on such a car. So no extra premium is paid but I've been forced to change my car. How much can I claim, if anything?
Those are 5 examples off the top of my head. How are they dealt with?
WinstonWolf said:
You do realise final payouts aren't itemised...
Claims from tp insurers usually are. It's very common to get a letter from the tp or the firm charged with recovering your losses saying "here is a chq for £525 in respect of your uninsured loss claim, made up as follows:"walm said:
I am not sure that just because SOME examples are tough/impossible that EVERY instance is unrecoverable.
Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
They are not recoverable because they aren't the tp's fault. The accident may have been their fault but the extra charge isn't.Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Not all insurers charge extra. The fact that you go to one that does isn't their fault. You could easily move to one that doesn't, even though their final premium might be higher.
Also, you're not being charged extras because you've changed as a risk, you always were that risk. It's just now they know about it.
That's easier to explain if you look at something like speeding. Most drivers speed at times. However, a small minority never do, or if they do, it's is very rare and they are unlikely ever to be caught. Before you get done for speeding, the insurer doesn't know if you do or you don't. Once you get done, they now know. You were still a speeding driver before you got caught, and carried that extra risk, but insurers didn't know. There's hardly much point in them asking "are you the type of driver who often speeds, regardless of whether you've been done or not" on the proposal form.
Another example. You're buying a house, wife is pregnant with twins and are going to need to take out life cover. You have a non fault accident and hurt your chest. You go to the docs and whilst he's investigating the pain, he isn't happy with what he hears thru the stethoscope. He sends you to the hospital and it turns out you have inoperable lung cancer.
Now, without the non fault claim, you would have happily taken out you life cover, £500K for £30 a month, honestly answering the question that you knew of no health issues. Sooner or later, you would have felt ill, gone to the docs, got the diagnosis and thereafter died. No problem with your life cover, and the wife and kids get the £500K
Now, due to the non fault accident, you can't do that, you die a few months later leaving your wife potless. The non fault claim pushed you into a higher risk bracket, but you were in that bracket before the claim. You had the cancer before the crash, you or the insurers just didn't know about it. It's not the tp's fault that they exposed the truth.
If you have a non fault accident because you travel over a notorious roundabout in the rush hour, you were doing that before the none fault accident, and you carried the extra risk over the person that doesn't. Now you've had the non fault claim, you're charged extra because they now have more info about your lifestyle and driving habits.
I have no doubt that post will annoy some but that does actually make some sense, I suppose.
But can't you still argue that the TP is the reason that your insurance deception is no longer effective?
Insurance companies are obviously happy to remain in ignorance about certain things but the TP's actions have shut that particular door to you.
(And as for switching provider, if you agree you always go with the cheapest, then you might have switched anyway. The loss is the delta between the price of the cheapest without the non-fault claim vs. the cheapest WITH the non-fault claim, even if they are two different companies.)
But can't you still argue that the TP is the reason that your insurance deception is no longer effective?
Insurance companies are obviously happy to remain in ignorance about certain things but the TP's actions have shut that particular door to you.
(And as for switching provider, if you agree you always go with the cheapest, then you might have switched anyway. The loss is the delta between the price of the cheapest without the non-fault claim vs. the cheapest WITH the non-fault claim, even if they are two different companies.)
That's a very thought provoking description of 'risk', but it's not how I think about it. There is no empirical definition or absolute quantification of an individual person's risk. It's an assessment of the liklihood of an event occurring within segments of a population. Then what insurance companies do is place you into those segments on the basis of several simple criteria - postcode, street/drive/garage, got done for speeding, age, experience, had a fault claim, had a non fault claim, sporty car, modified car, good driver or a woman driver etc.
Maybe it boils down to the same thing. I think I'm talking bollx as usual
Maybe it boils down to the same thing. I think I'm talking bollx as usual
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If increased premiums due to a non fault claim are recoverable from the tp, can someone please tell me how these situations would be dealt with. In each case, imagine I've been involved in a non fault accident:
1. My insurers charge me no extra. But 2 years later I buy a Ferrari and my insurers won't cover it. So I switch and my new insurers do want a higher premium due to past non fault claim.
2. My insurers charge me no extra. However 2 yrs later I'm involved in a fault claim. They then charge me extra, not because of either claim in isolation, but because I've had 2 claims, and anyone with 2 claims, fault or non fault, pays more.
3. I have 2 non fault claims in 2 yrs. No extra to pay. However, a third non fault accident and suddenly I have to pay extra, as 3 non fault claims trigger the charge.
4. For some weird reason, the quote is lower following a non fault claim than with no claim at all. Do I owe the tp that money I'm saving?
5. I have a non fault claim in my mum's Micra. But it means my own insurers won't cover me at all when I tell them about my non fault claim and I have to sell my Lamborghini as they were the only insurer who would cover me at my age and my area on such a car. So no extra premium is paid but I've been forced to change my car. How much can I claim, if anything?
Those are 5 examples off the top of my head. How are they dealt with?
If an increase in premiums is a natural consequence of a non fault claim, as you suggest, then that increase is quantifiable based on the facts as they are at that point in time. Much like an injury payout will pay out based on the information available at the time of the claim and the likely future impact of the injuries as they appear at that time. I'm talking about considerations beyond the scope of the Ogden tables in this instance.1. My insurers charge me no extra. But 2 years later I buy a Ferrari and my insurers won't cover it. So I switch and my new insurers do want a higher premium due to past non fault claim.
2. My insurers charge me no extra. However 2 yrs later I'm involved in a fault claim. They then charge me extra, not because of either claim in isolation, but because I've had 2 claims, and anyone with 2 claims, fault or non fault, pays more.
3. I have 2 non fault claims in 2 yrs. No extra to pay. However, a third non fault accident and suddenly I have to pay extra, as 3 non fault claims trigger the charge.
4. For some weird reason, the quote is lower following a non fault claim than with no claim at all. Do I owe the tp that money I'm saving?
5. I have a non fault claim in my mum's Micra. But it means my own insurers won't cover me at all when I tell them about my non fault claim and I have to sell my Lamborghini as they were the only insurer who would cover me at my age and my area on such a car. So no extra premium is paid but I've been forced to change my car. How much can I claim, if anything?
Those are 5 examples off the top of my head. How are they dealt with?
Maybe the insurance industry doesn't normally pay out in those circumstances, but that's not to say that no insurance company has ever paid out for increased premiums.
Edited by Richie Slow on Monday 18th April 19:41
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If increased premiums due to a non fault claim are recoverable from the tp, can someone please tell me how these situations would be dealt with. In each case, imagine I've been involved in a non fault accident:
1. My insurers charge me no extra. But 2 years later I buy a Ferrari and my insurers won't cover it. So I switch and my new insurers do want a higher premium due to past non fault claim.
2. My insurers charge me no extra. However 2 yrs later I'm involved in a fault claim. They then charge me extra, not because of either claim in isolation, but because I've had 2 claims, and anyone with 2 claims, fault or non fault, pays more.
3. I have 2 non fault claims in 2 yrs. No extra to pay. However, a third non fault accident and suddenly I have to pay extra, as 3 non fault claims trigger the charge.
4. For some weird reason, the quote is lower following a non fault claim than with no claim at all. Do I owe the tp that money I'm saving?
5. I have a non fault claim in my mum's Micra. But it means my own insurers won't cover me at all when I tell them about my non fault claim and I have to sell my Lamborghini as they were the only insurer who would cover me at my age and my area on such a car. So no extra premium is paid but I've been forced to change my car. How much can I claim, if anything?
Those are 5 examples off the top of my head. How are they dealt with?
I expect the test for reasonable foreseeability would apply, depending on the elaborate narrative you apply to your head of loss. There may be some element of the Wagon Mound that applies. 1. My insurers charge me no extra. But 2 years later I buy a Ferrari and my insurers won't cover it. So I switch and my new insurers do want a higher premium due to past non fault claim.
2. My insurers charge me no extra. However 2 yrs later I'm involved in a fault claim. They then charge me extra, not because of either claim in isolation, but because I've had 2 claims, and anyone with 2 claims, fault or non fault, pays more.
3. I have 2 non fault claims in 2 yrs. No extra to pay. However, a third non fault accident and suddenly I have to pay extra, as 3 non fault claims trigger the charge.
4. For some weird reason, the quote is lower following a non fault claim than with no claim at all. Do I owe the tp that money I'm saving?
5. I have a non fault claim in my mum's Micra. But it means my own insurers won't cover me at all when I tell them about my non fault claim and I have to sell my Lamborghini as they were the only insurer who would cover me at my age and my area on such a car. So no extra premium is paid but I've been forced to change my car. How much can I claim, if anything?
Those are 5 examples off the top of my head. How are they dealt with?
It would be reasonably foreseeable (according to all the claims here that insurers deem victims of a no fault accident as being higher risk) that a non fault driver would suffer increased premia for a period of 5 years (or whatever period for which his insurer requires such declaration) which he would not had suffered but for the action of the at fault driver. I expect if one made a reasonable estimate and provided some evidence that like for like renewal costs had gone up by £X in year 1, it might be deemed a reasonably certain estimate of loss to claim some multiple of £X to cover 5 years of increase premia.
Edited by johnfm on Monday 18th April 19:31
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff