Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.

[johnfm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

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.

The injured party is only under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses. They are not under a duty to expend unreasonable efforts to not suffer increased insurance premia.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Richie Slow said:

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.

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.

I never said it was a natural consequence. This isn't an exact science. It's guesswork. It's a long way above a wild stab in the dark, but we aren't talking in certainties.

As said, a 17 yr old may not claim, and his granny might, and no one knows which will and which won't. But what we do know is that 100 17 yr olds will have more claims than their grannies.

Leicester may win the prem this season. They might win the CL next season. I don't know who will win the Champions League over the next 10 yrs. But what I do know is this, the names of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Milan, Juve, Man U, Man C, PSG and the like will be engraved on that trophy more often that West Brom, watford, Crystal Palace, or any of the other hundreds of teams that could win it but probably won't.

Many insurance companies don't charge for non fault claims. Or they might charge for non fault accidents if you're under 25, and not if you're over. Or they may charge if you have a non fault claim and live in a city, but not if you don't. It's all down to their individual experience and actuarial predictions.

[PH XKR]

If only insurance was regulated, if only insurance fought to end no win no fee, but they wont as it would be biting the hand that feeds them.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PH XKR said:

If only insurance was regulated,

Yes, it needs some kind of authority to ensure good financial conduct. They could even call it the Financial Conduct Authority. And of course an ombudsman to appeal to. That would be good. And a huge set of complex regs to ensure the customer was treated fairly. Call them the Treating Customers Fairly regulations.

If only.

[johnfm]

PH XKR said:

If only insurance was regulated, if only insurance fought to end no win no fee, but they wont as it would be biting the hand that feeds them.

Insurance is pretty heavily regulated to be honest - and there is a high barrier to entry and the industry has been consolidating for some time.

There is more market competition than ever before really with the advent of comparison sites.

It just seems that insurers are taking the piss.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

johnfm said:

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,

BOOM!! We have a correct answer. Prize on it's way.

Such a test does apply; it's called the courts. They have decided that increased premiums do not pass the test of reasonable forseeability.

That is rerally the end of the story. Those are the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. They facts don't give a fk what you or I think.

[johnfm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

johnfm said:

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,

BOOM!! We have a correct answer. Prize on it's way.

Such a test does apply; it's called the courts. They have decided that increased premiums do not pass the test of reasonable forseeability.

That is rerally the end of the story. Those are the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. They facts don't give a fk what you or I think.

Do you have the relevant case law handy?

[PH XKR]

You seem angry, Loon seemed angry, have you thought about a change of career?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PH XKR said:

You seem angry, Loon seemed angry, have you thought about a change of career?

Maybe I should go into insurance. My current role means I need to have a reasonable working knowledge of it.

What do you reckon?

[Richie Slow]

There are some well reasoned arguments raised so far and we all have an opinion on what is fair. But claiming back an increase in premiums won't be easy for two reasons.

1. The industry as a whole is happy for punters to meet the increase.

2. The industry as a whole has no interest in either paying out for losses or recovering them for customers.

That's not likely to change anytime soon, but we don't have to like it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Richie Slow said:

There are some well reasoned arguments raised so far and we all have an opinion on what is fair. But claiming back an increase in premiums won't be easy for two reasons.

1. The industry as a whole is happy for punters to meet the increase.

2. The industry as a whole has no interest in either paying out for losses or recovering them for customers.

That's not likely to change anytime soon, but we don't have to like it.

The industry has no say on what the courts decide are forseeable and recoverable losses. Insurance covers your legal liability to third parties. But it has no power to decide what those liabilities should consist of.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

johnfm said:

Do you have the relevant case law handy?

It's covered in an amalgam of different cases to cover the overall principle. You could start with Lamb v L.B. Camden (1981). Also, the fact that it's a pure economic loss is relevant, as covered in various cases, such as Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973].

But in short, you need to pull together rulings in various cases to establish case precedent.

I am not aware of a claim for increased premiums being discussed specifically and having it's own case (although there might be) but more that such claims are not successful because of a combination of rulings in various cases, such as the 2 above.

[Roo]

PH XKR said:

You seem angry, Loon seemed angry, have you thought about a change of career?

Frustrated at peoples lack of comprehension of the facts would be a more accurate description.

[johnfm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

johnfm said:

Do you have the relevant case law handy?

It's covered in an amalgam of different cases to cover the overall principle. You could start with Lamb v L.B. Camden (1981). Also, the fact that it's a pure economic loss is relevant, as covered in various cases, such as Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973].

But in short, you need to pull together rulings in various cases to establish case precedent.

I am not aware of a claim for increased premiums being discussed specifically and having it's own case (although there might be) but more that such claims are not successful because of a combination of rulings in various cases, such as the 2 above.

Cheers

[Richie Slow]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Richie Slow said:

There are some well reasoned arguments raised so far and we all have an opinion on what is fair. But claiming back an increase in premiums won't be easy for two reasons.

1. The industry as a whole is happy for punters to meet the increase.

2. The industry as a whole has no interest in either paying out for losses or recovering them for customers.

That's not likely to change anytime soon, but we don't have to like it.

The industry has no say on what the courts decide are forseeable and recoverable losses. Insurance covers your legal liability to third parties. But it has no power to decide what those liabilities should consist of.

I was questioning why the insurance companies don't claim back future rises in the same way that they claim back excesses and protect NCBs. As you say, the courts have never specifically ruled on increased premiums ( in a manner to set a precedent) so they should be excluded from consideration at this time.

[snorky782]

Richie Slow said:

I was questioning why the insurance companies don't claim back future rises in the same way that they claim back excesses and protect NCBs. As you say, the courts have never specifically ruled on increased premiums ( in a manner to set a precedent) so they should be excluded from consideration at this time.

They don't claim back NCD, it is theirs to give or not as the case may be.

Some insurers will waive or claim back excesses for their customers, but only where lability has been agreed ahead of the repair being finished.

An increased premium is nothing to do with your insurer. If they could claim it back, or if you could then what's to stop an insurer saying your premium is now £1billlion a year dearer than last year, go and claim it off the other insurer. A couple of those and the other insurers will be out of business, leaving a monopoly for your insurer.

In reality, every insurer will be hit and they'll walk away as the risk is too great and we'd all be stuffed.

Edited by snorky782 on Tuesday 19th April 13:21

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Richie Slow said:

As you say, the courts have never specifically ruled on increased premiums ( in a manner to set a precedent) so they should be excluded from consideration at this time.

They don't have to be ruled upon specifically to set precedent. President is only set when an entirely new legal principle is set or amended.

You might sue your neighbour over a dispute with him flying a drone with a camera over your property. You might go to court and win or lose based on a case in 1822, say Acme Steam Engines v Widnes Canal Maintenance Ltd. (which I've just made up before someone tells me it doesn't exist)

No new precedent will have been set as it isn't required. But the case and future cases can be decided upon a 200 yrs old case that had nothing to do with drones or cameras, but was about breach or privacy.

[Richie Slow]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They don't have to be ruled upon specifically to set precedent. President is only set when an entirely new legal principle is set or amended.

You might sue your neighbour over a dispute with him flying a drone with a camera over your property. You might go to court and win or lose based on a case in 1822, say Acme Steam Engines v Widnes Canal Maintenance Ltd. (which I've just made up before someone tells me it doesn't exist)

No new precedent will have been set as it isn't required. But the case and future cases can be decided upon a 200 yrs old case that had nothing to do with drones or cameras, but was about breach or privacy.

I fear we are straying away from the matter. Rules of binding precedent and persuasive precedent are another matter altogether.

I was asking about matters that are routinely dealt with between insurers and customers (normal damages, losses etc.). Using the same logic as that used in injury claims it is quite easy to apply a few simple tests to assess the actual impact of increased premiums based on the information at that time. This might even be less speculative than the long term consideration of someone's injuries.

But I firmly believe that it is not in the interests of the industry to pursue this line either for their clients or for the industry as a whole. A cynical person might see an increase in premiums as a kind of underhand loss of no-claims, by effect.

[walm]

Richie Slow said:

But I firmly believe that it is not in the interests of the industry to pursue this line either for their clients or for the industry as a whole.

I am pretty sure it wouldn't make much difference to the insurance companies.
If claiming back the increased premiums from the at-fault third party became routine, then the entire industry would simply raise overall premiums (to everyone) to cover the increased average level of payouts.

Just like whiplash, the innocent party would be made whole at the expense of everyone's premium.

[snorky782]

Richie Slow said:

I fear we are straying away from the matter. Rules of binding precedent and persuasive precedent are another matter altogether.

I was asking about matters that are routinely dealt with between insurers and customers (normal damages, losses etc.). Using the same logic as that used in injury claims it is quite easy to apply a few simple tests to assess the actual impact of increased premiums based on the information at that time. This might even be less speculative than the long term consideration of someone's injuries.

But I firmly believe that it is not in the interests of the industry to pursue this line either for their clients or for the industry as a whole. A cynical person might see an increase in premiums as a kind of underhand loss of no-claims, by effect.

You need to grasp the concept of uninsured losses. Your insurer does not pay you for anything other than the repair to your vehicle (excluding bolt on ancillary policies).