Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
WinstonWolf said:
In *this* case it IS the fault of the insurer's client. Would you be willing to shrug off not driving for a year because someone else screwed up?
The purpose of insurance is to put the innocent party back in the same position they would have been had the collision not occurred.
But he is, the car is repaired.The purpose of insurance is to put the innocent party back in the same position they would have been had the collision not occurred.
As I understand it, even with a no-fault accident, the insurer can take that into account in future premiums, and you can't recover those premium increases from the other party.
I may be wrong.
If only LoonR1 were still here...
Vaud said:
WinstonWolf said:
In *this* case it IS the fault of the insurer's client. Would you be willing to shrug off not driving for a year because someone else screwed up?
The purpose of insurance is to put the innocent party back in the same position they would have been had the collision not occurred.
But he is, the car is repaired.The purpose of insurance is to put the innocent party back in the same position they would have been had the collision not occurred.
As I understand it, even with a no-fault accident, the insurer can take that into account in future premiums, and you can't recover those premium increases from the other party.
I may be wrong.
If only LoonR1 were still here...
Bottom line, someone else has turned him into a bus w
ker with a nice statue of a car on the driveway...WinstonWolf said:
Is he in the same position he was before the third party crashed into him?
Bottom line, someone else has turned him into a bus wker with a nice statue of a car on the driveway...
Sure. Lots of things happen in life. You pick up and move on, or get aggrieved and campaign to change the system.Bottom line, someone else has turned him into a bus w
ker with a nice statue of a car on the driveway...But think through the consequences of people being able to fully recover future increased premium costs. Guess what, it would drive up everyones premiums...
Vaud said:
WinstonWolf said:
Is he in the same position he was before the third party crashed into him?
Bottom line, someone else has turned him into a bus wker with a nice statue of a car on the driveway...
Sure. Lots of things happen in life. You pick up and move on, or get aggrieved and campaign to change the system.Bottom line, someone else has turned him into a bus w
ker with a nice statue of a car on the driveway...But think through the consequences of people being able to fully recover future increased premium costs. Guess what, it would drive up everyones premiums...
It's an S3, a powerful and for a new driver, they may think it'll end up damaged. unfortunately, it has been proved to be correct (due to no fault of your own) and they've loaded the premium.
Personally, I would buy a sub-grand shed, like a clio or a Fiesta and run that for 3 years until you've got 3 yrs ncb. I did it that way, and I've just bought a 2014 Megane RS265, and I pay £550 to insure it.
Personally, I would buy a sub-grand shed, like a clio or a Fiesta and run that for 3 years until you've got 3 yrs ncb. I did it that way, and I've just bought a 2014 Megane RS265, and I pay £550 to insure it.
Vaud said:
WinstonWolf said:
So you'd be happy to use the bus for a year or two through no fault of your own?
No-one is forcing him to take the bus, you are presenting a different argument and to the extreme. I bet that his is insurable on a lower cost vehicle.
What is your solution?
Riley Blue said:
The insurance on one of my cars has risen by 14.6% this year. No accidents, no modifications, no change of any sort other than a 3.5% increase in IPT (Insurance Premium Tax).
Maths fail. You're using two different percentage calculation criteria. IPT went from 6 to 9.5%, which is not a 3.5% increase as you claim, it's a 58% increase. But as it's a 58% increase on only a small part of your premium, the overall premium has only risen 14.6%.
Precisely...
I feel your pain,
I had an old MK2 Golf GTi stolen, my first ever claim. My premium was around £400 year in, year out; prior to the claim. But when the renewal came through, the letter included no quote but advised a lot of things had changed within the industry and to call up. So I did, the representative explained there was no point quoting me as the company doesn't like insuring those who have had a claim within 12 months. I said humour me.. Over £4,000!!!
After ringing around countless insurance companies the best I could get was around £2,000. And they were the ones which would actually quote, a lot refused due to having a claim within 12 months - I think that's the kicker.
I ended up buying an Corrado and taking our classic insurance for around £300 - The only issue is you won't accrue any NCB and you usually need it as a second car.
I had an old MK2 Golf GTi stolen, my first ever claim. My premium was around £400 year in, year out; prior to the claim. But when the renewal came through, the letter included no quote but advised a lot of things had changed within the industry and to call up. So I did, the representative explained there was no point quoting me as the company doesn't like insuring those who have had a claim within 12 months. I said humour me.. Over £4,000!!!
After ringing around countless insurance companies the best I could get was around £2,000. And they were the ones which would actually quote, a lot refused due to having a claim within 12 months - I think that's the kicker.
I ended up buying an Corrado and taking our classic insurance for around £300 - The only issue is you won't accrue any NCB and you usually need it as a second car.
WinstonWolf said:
The purpose of insurance is to put the innocent party back in the same position they would have been had the collision not occurred.
A common misconception. Read your insurance policy, and see what it says about their obligations to the tp should you be involved in a fault accident. It'll say nothing about putting them back in the same position, it'll just say that they will take care of your legal liability towards the tp. That's not the same thing at all.
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. Ergo, they're higher risk.
That wasn't the line that was used when one insurance salesman wanted me to sign the on the line when I told him I had never made a claim in my driving history. His excuse was that the average person will make at least one claim per lifetime, therefore as I had not made one yet I am more likely to make a claim in the future.IMO the non-fault claim should never be used as a cost factor in insurance quotes. As pointed out already, its because the system is unregulated that they can get away with it.
I do wonder how accurate those statistics are to be honest. Were they compiled/funded by an insurance company out of interest?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff