Knock for knock excess question
Discussion
This morning I was involved in a very minor incident with another vehicle with no damage to my car.
He says it was my fault and I say it is his, but I can't see any insurance company being able to apportion/prove blame on one party or the other.
We have exchanged details.
I have no intention of making a claim, but he ( or I should say his father, as it was his father's car or insurance ) might make a claim for damage to his car.
Assuming that he claims for damage to his car and the insurance companies agree knock for knock
and I'm not claiming, will any portion of my excess (50%?) be used towards his damage?
He says it was my fault and I say it is his, but I can't see any insurance company being able to apportion/prove blame on one party or the other.
We have exchanged details.
I have no intention of making a claim, but he ( or I should say his father, as it was his father's car or insurance ) might make a claim for damage to his car.
Assuming that he claims for damage to his car and the insurance companies agree knock for knock
and I'm not claiming, will any portion of my excess (50%?) be used towards his damage?
Knock for knock is different from 50/50, and knock for knock agreements ended decades ago.
If the claim is settled 50/50, your insurers will pay half his damage, including half his excess and half any courtesy car costs. His insurers will pay half your claim, which will be zero as you have no damage. Your excess won't apply if you have no own damage.
If the claim is settled 50/50, your insurers will pay half his damage, including half his excess and half any courtesy car costs. His insurers will pay half your claim, which will be zero as you have no damage. Your excess won't apply if you have no own damage.
Red Devil said:
An excess is something you pay in respect of you making a claim for damage repairs to your car on your policy. Irrelevant to a third party.
Btw, if the TP does make a claim, your insurer may wonder why you weren't the first to tell them about the collision.
Yup check your policy wording for clauses relating to having an obligation to inform them. Hopefully you have a phone number for the other person, give him a call and ask to speak to the owner of the car. Go from there - worst case for everyone involved is a knock for knock claim if the repair costs are minor.Btw, if the TP does make a claim, your insurer may wonder why you weren't the first to tell them about the collision.
Edited by Black_S3 on Tuesday 25th November 07:47
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Knock for knock is different from 50/50, and knock for knock agreements ended decades ago.
If the claim is settled 50/50, your insurers will pay half his damage, including half his excess and half any courtesy car costs. His insurers will pay half your claim, which will be zero as you have no damage. Your excess won't apply if you have no own damage.
The insurer I work for has K4K agreements with several insurers which are still very much alive, kicking and abided by!If the claim is settled 50/50, your insurers will pay half his damage, including half his excess and half any courtesy car costs. His insurers will pay half your claim, which will be zero as you have no damage. Your excess won't apply if you have no own damage.
Black_S3 said:
Yeah what ever it's called may have changed. The fact they could both still end up with claims on their own insurance is still a possibility.
It's not the same thing, Knock for knock is an agreement between insurer not to claim off each other, because for large insurers with equal market share with equally diverse customer portfolios it makes no difference, for every claim against them, there is 1 going the other way, they'd end up paying roughly the same amount if they put all the claims for a year into a hat, and randomly drew them to decide who pays which claim and it saves a fortune not having to investigate claims.This is completely different to sharing liability for an accident
ging84 said:
It's not the same thing, Knock for knock is an agreement between insurer not to claim off each other, because for large insurers with equal market share with equally diverse customer portfolios it makes no difference, for every claim against them, there is 1 going the other way, they'd end up paying roughly the same amount if they put all the claims for a year into a hat, and randomly drew them to decide who pays which claim and it saves a fortune not having to investigate claims.
This is completely different to sharing liability for an accident
Not disagreeing with you - you clearly know about the technicalities of how insurance companies deal with each other. However unless I've miss understood what you've said the end result for Joe blogs remain as a claim on both parties insurance?This is completely different to sharing liability for an accident
Black_S3 said:
Not disagreeing with you - you clearly know about the technicalities of how insurance companies deal with each other. However unless I've miss understood what you've said the end result for Joe blogs remain as a claim on both parties insurance?
No not quite. The claim on the non fault side would still be set as non fault with bonus allowed, exactly the same as if the insurer recovered the money. As it says above allows us to get claims settled quicker without arguing over outlays etc.Black_S3 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nope, knock for knock hasn't been used for decades, see my above post.
Yeah what ever it's called may have changed. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff