Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
walm said:
snorky782 said:
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).
You need to grasp the concept of non-fault.Your insurer has nothing to do with them!!
Blimey and there I was labouring under the misapprehension that I had a contract with them.
snorky782 said:
Really? So my insurer won't cover me if I'm in a non-fault accident? They won't repair my car? They won't offer me a (credit) hire car? They won't inflate the cost of the repair? They won't recover this form the at fault insurer?
Blimey and there I was labouring under the misapprehension that I had a contract with them.
You said it yourself. They recover these costs from the at fault insurer.Blimey and there I was labouring under the misapprehension that I had a contract with them.
So no they don't pay for the repair to your car. Or the hire car. Or anything else.
Obviously.
Oh and where you take the car for repair is up to you not anyone else.
And lastly, you don't HAVE to involve your own insurer at all, other than letting them know it happened.
You could use a claims management company or just liaise directly with the third party insurer.
popeyewhite said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim.
Statistics can be made to show whatever you want. Feed results into a computer and ask the right questions and you'll get whatever you need. However as this relentless pursuit of money by some insurance companies continues many more people will find themselves losing the incentive to declare incidents, resulting in loss of revenue for providers. walm said:
You said it yourself. They recover these costs from the at fault insurer.
So no they don't pay for the repair to your car. Or the hire car. Or anything else.
Obviously.
Oh and where you take the car for repair is up to you not anyone else.
And lastly, you don't HAVE to involve your own insurer at all, other than letting them know it happened.
You could use a claims management company or just liaise directly with the third party insurer.
They may recover, but they are definitely involved. They only recover (inflated) outlay, but not their operational costs. So no they don't pay for the repair to your car. Or the hire car. Or anything else.
Obviously.
Oh and where you take the car for repair is up to you not anyone else.
And lastly, you don't HAVE to involve your own insurer at all, other than letting them know it happened.
You could use a claims management company or just liaise directly with the third party insurer.
Several insurers will control where your car goes or face an increased excess
Whilst there's no compulsion to involve them, by far the majority do though.
In a no-fault accident it's very possible that an excess will be paid by the non-fault driver/party which can then in turn be recovered back from the at-fault party, normally by the claimant themselves or their representative (sometimes an AMC, sometimes a lawyer, sometimes their own insurer).
Insurers sometimes say that if you insist on having your car repaired at your chosen repairer you will have to pay an increased (normally double the amount of) policy excess. It's one way that they can bring their claims spend down because they have commercial deals with their preferred "approved" repairers. This regardless of whether they can reclaim the cost outlay back from the at-fault insurer.
Insurers sometimes say that if you insist on having your car repaired at your chosen repairer you will have to pay an increased (normally double the amount of) policy excess. It's one way that they can bring their claims spend down because they have commercial deals with their preferred "approved" repairers. This regardless of whether they can reclaim the cost outlay back from the at-fault insurer.
anniesdad said:
In a no-fault accident it's very possible that an excess will be paid by the non-fault driver/party which can then in turn be recovered back from the at-fault party, normally by the claimant themselves or their representative (sometimes an AMC, sometimes a lawyer, sometimes their own insurer).
Insurers sometimes say that if you insist on having your car repaired at your chosen repairer you will have to pay an increased (normally double the amount of) policy excess. It's one way that they can bring their claims spend down because they have commercial deals with their preferred "approved" repairers. This regardless of whether they can reclaim the cost outlay back from the at-fault insurer.
Absolutely.Insurers sometimes say that if you insist on having your car repaired at your chosen repairer you will have to pay an increased (normally double the amount of) policy excess. It's one way that they can bring their claims spend down because they have commercial deals with their preferred "approved" repairers. This regardless of whether they can reclaim the cost outlay back from the at-fault insurer.
You temporarily pay the excess.
But no matter what level it is, in a non-fault, you get it back!
No?
walm said:
Absolutely.
You temporarily pay the excess.
But no matter what level it is, in a non-fault, you get it back!
No?
If the other side admit liability or agree to pay without prejudice, yes you (should) get it back. It's one of the easiest heads of claim to recover as it's hard to challenge and very easy to prove. You temporarily pay the excess.
But no matter what level it is, in a non-fault, you get it back!
No?
Edited by anniesdad on Wednesday 20th April 14:13
bmw535i said:
walm said:
Absolutely.
You temporarily pay the excess.
But no matter what level it is, in a non-fault, you get it back!
No?
Unless the other driver was uninsured or failed to stop..........You temporarily pay the excess.
But no matter what level it is, in a non-fault, you get it back!
No?
As well I know after a deer ran into my car nearly writing it off.
"We can't claim the repairs costs back from the deer sir, so I am afraid you lose your excess and it's an at-fault claim."
walm said:
Well this is going to annoy lots on here, but in insurance speak those aren't non-fault claims.
As well I know after a deer ran into my car nearly writing it off.
"We can't claim the repairs costs back from the deer sir, so I am afraid you lose your excess and it's an at-fault claim."
I thought they would find a way around it As well I know after a deer ran into my car nearly writing it off.
"We can't claim the repairs costs back from the deer sir, so I am afraid you lose your excess and it's an at-fault claim."
Am I right in thinking in cases like this you can get compensation from the MIB, or is that only for injuries?
Sump said:
This is pretty much why you just chuck in a whiplash claim. It would have covered the expenses of the insurance hike for the next few years. Imo this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Of course it is, if you actually have whiplash. Otherwise it just marks you out as a selfish t
t really. ascayman said:
Sump said:
This is pretty much why you just chuck in a whiplash claim. It would have covered the expenses of the insurance hike for the next few years. Imo this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Of course it is, if you actually have whiplash. Otherwise it just marks you out as a selfish tt really. You're not scamming here for a new iPad, that's wrong.
bmw535i said:
I thought they would find a way around it
Am I right in thinking in cases like this you can get compensation from the MIB, or is that only for injuries?
MIB does repairs and injury I think.Am I right in thinking in cases like this you can get compensation from the MIB, or is that only for injuries?
Sadly it doesn't do animals sprinting across the road at you.
(I think - would love to know if I am wrong!)
Sump said:
ascayman said:
Sump said:
This is pretty much why you just chuck in a whiplash claim. It would have covered the expenses of the insurance hike for the next few years. Imo this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Of course it is, if you actually have whiplash. Otherwise it just marks you out as a selfish tt really. You're not scamming here for a new iPad, that's wrong.
StottyEvo said:
This is coming from someone who's been involved in multiple non fault accidents, hasn't claimed for injuries but has been stung with increased premiums.
Based on your own experiences, what's you view on the insurer's claim that having been involved with one non-fault accident drivers are at a higher risk of being involved with further accidents? 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff