Insurance rise following a non-fault accident
Discussion
adam quantrill said:
B4M said:
The other driver admitted full liability and the hire company have submitted their claim for the damage repair. It's considered 'settled' for the sum of ~£520 to the hire company.
There you have it then. You have not made any claim. The hire company have made the claim.Edited by B4M on Wednesday 15th January 15:15
Seems like you are adding someone else's claim to your quote?
So said:
Out of interest, has anyone heard of an insurer using a pothole damage claim to increase a premium?
I ask because we reported a damaged tyre due to a pothole yesterday and the council asked for our insurance details.
A pothole claim is an accident so should technically be declared. I have no idea if the insurance company become aware of it from the LA some may use insurance/outsourcing to deal with pothole claims so it's possible some cross referencing goes on, although I would have thought you would have had to agree to it in some T&Cs. I ask because we reported a damaged tyre due to a pothole yesterday and the council asked for our insurance details.
So said:
Out of interest, has anyone heard of an insurer using a pothole damage claim to increase a premium?
I ask because we reported a damaged tyre due to a pothole yesterday and the council asked for our insurance details.
You are under no obligation to tell them. If the car was uninsured, and you were drunk, and the car was being used as a getaway car from an armed robbery. If they we negligent and caused damage to the vehicle, they are still liable. I ask because we reported a damaged tyre due to a pothole yesterday and the council asked for our insurance details.
BertBert said:
And to the question, there was a poster on here fairly recently who I think said they had succeeded in this where all others said it wasn't possible. That's not very helpful, but might prompt someone who has a better memory than me.
Bert
As I recall,when the story eventually came out, he'd been successful in claiming for something completely different.Bert
The question is normally have you had an accident as well as claim.
While not saying it is right the reason as said before is that you are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again then someone who has had no claims. The reason for that is while the other party is 100% at fault for hitting you (and hence the claim) there are defensive driving techniques that drivers can apply to minimise being rear ended when at the back of the queue. The fact that you were hit suggests you may not have exercised these techniques and therefore could get hit again compared to a driver who does and doesnt have an accident and therefore has no claims. While they may recovery all of there costs in a subsequent accident they may night depending on the details and commercials at the time. They therefore have a higher risk and hence higher premium.
While not saying it is right the reason as said before is that you are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again then someone who has had no claims. The reason for that is while the other party is 100% at fault for hitting you (and hence the claim) there are defensive driving techniques that drivers can apply to minimise being rear ended when at the back of the queue. The fact that you were hit suggests you may not have exercised these techniques and therefore could get hit again compared to a driver who does and doesnt have an accident and therefore has no claims. While they may recovery all of there costs in a subsequent accident they may night depending on the details and commercials at the time. They therefore have a higher risk and hence higher premium.
Increased premiums are not recoverable from the third party, see the following thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
and scroll down to the post(s) by LoonR1.
You can also google for further posts on the subject using the following search string:-
LoonR1 non fault accident increase premium : pistonheads.com
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
and scroll down to the post(s) by LoonR1.
You can also google for further posts on the subject using the following search string:-
LoonR1 non fault accident increase premium : pistonheads.com
rayny said:
Increased premiums are not recoverable from the third party, see the following thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
and scroll down to the post(s) by LoonR1.
You can also google for further posts on the subject using the following search string:-
LoonR1 non fault accident increase premium : pistonheads.com
Bear in mind he worked in the industry and he used to post what the industry wanted people to believe.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
and scroll down to the post(s) by LoonR1.
You can also google for further posts on the subject using the following search string:-
LoonR1 non fault accident increase premium : pistonheads.com
I’ve seen people say they got the extra premiums refunded.
Compensation for reduction in value after an accident is the another one insiders say is impossible but there was recent post on here from someone who got 20% of the value of his car.
I’m in a similar and probably worse situation. I’d not had any sort of claim for over 10 years and still have 15 years + no claims bonus. This insurance year I’ve twice claimed from another drivers insurance company. For one of them I wasn’t even driving, my car was hit in a supermarket car park.
Graveworm said:
A pothole claim is an accident so should technically be declared. I have no idea if the insurance company become aware of it from the LA some may use insurance/outsourcing to deal with pothole claims so it's possible some cross referencing goes on, although I would have thought you would have had to agree to it in some T&Cs.
Oh come on Mr Worm. That's the same as saying you should declare scuffing a wheel against the kerb :-). ( I do know that there are some oddballs on here that would actually do that...)Councils probably ask to see if they are in the position to threaten the uninsured off by way of notifying the law. Unless things have changed recently, the council is responsible for damage caused by their lack of road maintenance. Perhaps they are only responsible for road legal vehicles, and due to the increased number of uninsured drivers, it's now worth them checking your insurance status out.
RogerDodger said:
Oh come on Mr Worm. That's the same as saying you should declare scuffing a wheel against the kerb :-). ( I do know that there are some oddballs on here that would actually do that...)
Councils probably ask to see if they are in the position to threaten the uninsured off by way of notifying the law. Unless things have changed recently, the council is responsible for damage caused by their lack of road maintenance. Perhaps they are only responsible for road legal vehicles, and due to the increased number of uninsured drivers, it's now worth them checking your insurance status out.
Technically they should declare kerbing as well. It's an accident as defined. I doubt that any insurance companies would be bothered if people don't though, and they are unlikely to find out. If someone borrowed your car, and kerbed it, would you be OK with them not telling you? So it's just a matter of degree and whether being honest is less important than lower insurance premiums.Councils probably ask to see if they are in the position to threaten the uninsured off by way of notifying the law. Unless things have changed recently, the council is responsible for damage caused by their lack of road maintenance. Perhaps they are only responsible for road legal vehicles, and due to the increased number of uninsured drivers, it's now worth them checking your insurance status out.
I would argue a non fault accident and in some cases potholes are often less of an indication of risk than hitting a kerb.
Graveworm said:
It's very complicated and hard to explain. Your premium has not been increased because the third party crashed into you. It's because statistically, they think you are an increased risk because of your involvement in that accident.
And of course the insurance company's reasoning is total BS. Because as a total polar opposite angle of reasoning, my work colleague sitting on desk to next me was trying to reduce his insurance premium renewal quote just recently, having no claim history at all, and over 15 years no claims bonus. Yet they were trying to reason that because he has spent so long without an accident, statistically he is due one soon, and therefore this "risk" has been reflected on his premium increase for this year.
In this case he laughed at them, told them don't bother to renew the policy and hung up.
ZeroGroundZero said:
And of course the insurance company's reasoning is total BS.
Because as a total polar opposite angle of reasoning, my work colleague sitting on desk to next me was trying to reduce his insurance premium renewal quote just recently, having no claim history at all, and over 15 years no claims bonus. Yet they were trying to reason that because he has spent so long without an accident, statistically he is due one soon, and therefore this "risk" has been reflected on his premium increase for this year.
In this case he laughed at them, told them don't bother to renew the policy and hung up.
The insurance companies don't reason, it's possible to get a bespoke insurance based on specific risks, which does involve reasoning, unfortunately the cost of assessing the risk is usually more than any annual premium for an individual, so pointless. Because as a total polar opposite angle of reasoning, my work colleague sitting on desk to next me was trying to reduce his insurance premium renewal quote just recently, having no claim history at all, and over 15 years no claims bonus. Yet they were trying to reason that because he has spent so long without an accident, statistically he is due one soon, and therefore this "risk" has been reflected on his premium increase for this year.
In this case he laughed at them, told them don't bother to renew the policy and hung up.
All insurance companies do is look at correlation, they don't look at any causal link. Consider someone who, currently, does not commute by car or drive at work, who changes occupation, but works the same hours and still only drives when it's unconnected with work. Their risk almost certainly has not changed, but they have joined a new group that, on average, has a different risk.
I have never had an accident in 38 years of driving, I am an advanced driver. My wife passed her test by an amusing fluke of fate, 22 years ago and has only driven a handful of times since. My insurance is cheaper with her added as a named driver.
What your colleague was told was almost certainly from a representative who could not possibly know what, within the algorithm they used, impacted their premium. I don't imagine an insurance company would ever willingly lose a customer if they really thought their premium represents an acceptable risk.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 16th January 09:46
I had a no-fault accident in December. It was at a roundabout and the other party failed to conform to give way lines. As clear cut as you can get, rather like being driven into from behind whilst stationary.
I expected to have my quote go up. My daughter worked in insurance and, she reckoned, that everything is data driven. Have one accident, whatever the reason, and there's an increase in risk.
Imagine my surprise when my premium actually dropped. Not much, but it dropped. I don't know if the premium would have reduced more of course, but there's no reason for it. I've not made a claim for over a dozen years.
I paid, half expecting them to come back with a 'we've made a mistake'. But no.
I have a protected NCB, but that doesn't, I think, come into play. I could be wrong I suppose.
The only extra cost has been that for a dashcam.
I expected to have my quote go up. My daughter worked in insurance and, she reckoned, that everything is data driven. Have one accident, whatever the reason, and there's an increase in risk.
Imagine my surprise when my premium actually dropped. Not much, but it dropped. I don't know if the premium would have reduced more of course, but there's no reason for it. I've not made a claim for over a dozen years.
I paid, half expecting them to come back with a 'we've made a mistake'. But no.
I have a protected NCB, but that doesn't, I think, come into play. I could be wrong I suppose.
The only extra cost has been that for a dashcam.
bad company said:
I’m in a similar and probably worse situation. I’d not had any sort of claim for over 10 years and still have 15 years + no claims bonus. This insurance year I’ve twice claimed from another drivers insurance company. For one of them I wasn’t even driving, my car was hit in a supermarket car park.
Not everyone parks in supermarket car parks. They are high risk places. You clearly do, and next time you get hit, you might not know who was responsible, and need to claim on your policy. Now your insurance company know you park in supermarket car parks, they are entitled to charge you extra at renewal. That is not the fault of the person who hit you. O)f course, at renewal, you will be entitled to move to another insurance company.
.
Graveworm said:
The insurance companies don't reason,....
Bow to your knowledge on the subject.I presume then the real world risk that could be argued in favour of the consumer is very different to the logarithmic risk profile set up to protect the company against the amount is has to pay out to its consumers on average.
ZeroGroundZero said:
Because as a total polar opposite angle of reasoning, my work colleague sitting on desk to next me was trying to reduce his insurance premium renewal quote just recently, having no claim history at all, and over 15 years no claims bonus. Yet they were trying to reason that because he has spent so long without an accident, statistically he is due one soon, and therefore this "risk" has been reflected on his premium increase for this year.
Seems as random as any other way of looking at stats. I recall reading the average driver is involved in an accident every 5yrs, so if he hasn't had one for 15yrs then he's well overdue!ZeroGroundZero said:
Bow to your knowledge on the subject.
I presume then the real world risk that could be argued in favour of the consumer is very different to the logarithmic risk profile set up to protect the company against the amount is has to pay out to its consumers on average.
My knowledge is not first hand and historic . A former Mrs Graveworm was in insurance (Not the reason we broke up) I do understand that motor insurance is already not very profitable and they make more money from those who pay the lowest premiums. I presume then the real world risk that could be argued in favour of the consumer is very different to the logarithmic risk profile set up to protect the company against the amount is has to pay out to its consumers on average.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff