Claiming increased insurance costs from third party?
Discussion
Last November I was involved in an accident were the third party drove into the rear of my stationary car. After the usual prolonged back and forth he was eventually found at fault and I had the car claim settled (write off) and my NCB restored etc. However I'm still waiting to be paid my expenses due to the sticking point of the insurance company refusing to pay my increased premium due to declaring the non-fault accident.
A typical quote on confused.com will be around £60-70 more from the cheapest insurer if I declare the non-fault accident, which i'll have to do for the next 5 years. My question really is isn't it 'fair' for me to have this increase for the next 5 years paid for by the third party insurer? They seemingly aren't budging on paying anything for this so my solicitor has said they will need to 'begin proceedings' whatever that entails...
A typical quote on confused.com will be around £60-70 more from the cheapest insurer if I declare the non-fault accident, which i'll have to do for the next 5 years. My question really is isn't it 'fair' for me to have this increase for the next 5 years paid for by the third party insurer? They seemingly aren't budging on paying anything for this so my solicitor has said they will need to 'begin proceedings' whatever that entails...
I am amazed that your premium will be increased, so keep the evidence that it does - print off the quotes. Are you reading the quote form correctly? I was not aware that you had to declare settled claims where you were 100% not at fault.
This I think is classed as an uninsured loss, which you can reclaim from the guilty party. Their insurers will have to pay on their behalf.
This I think is classed as an uninsured loss, which you can reclaim from the guilty party. Their insurers will have to pay on their behalf.
You can't claim increased insurance costs for a non fault claim imposed by your insurer, from a third party. Because not every insurer charges for this. The third party is responsible for reasonably foreseeable costs as a result of their policyholders negligence and increase insurance costs isn't one of them. It's his fault he hit you, but it's not his fault you're insured with a crap insurer. Find a better one.
Suppose you were on your way to buy a lotto ticket when the accident happened, so you didn't buy it and your numbers came up. They wouldn't be responsible for your lost millions, as it wasn't a foreseeable consequence and is too remote form the original incident.
Suppose you were on your way to buy a lotto ticket when the accident happened, so you didn't buy it and your numbers came up. They wouldn't be responsible for your lost millions, as it wasn't a foreseeable consequence and is too remote form the original incident.
Quietlybonkers said:
I am amazed that your premium will be increased
A couple of years back my work van was parked up outside a customers house when his numpty of a neighbour managed to reverse straight into the front wing of it. It only made a 50p sized dent and no insurance claim was made - For the last few years theres been a batch of insurers who have loaded my premiums by a couple of hundred quid as a result!.Needless to say these insurers will never get my business. My current insurer hasn't added any additional costs because of it though.
surveyor said:
Deva Link said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You can't claim increased insurance costs for a non fault claim imposed by your insurer, from a third party.
Of course you can.Read the OP. The tp insurer, having accepted liability, are refusing to pay this loss? Why, if they are obligated to?
Do you think they'd have to pay his lost lotto jackpot if the claim stopped him from buying his ticket? What if he had a ming vase in the boot worth £3m? Would they haver to pay for that. Is that a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accident? Where do you draw the line on what losses you can claim back.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Intersting. And how do you quantify the loss, over the next 5 yrs. What if you change your car after 3 yrs, and the extra you pay for the non fault claim as a percentage loading increases because your new car is more expensive to cover. How do you get that back. What if they pay you for 5 yrs extra premium but after a year your insurer decides to no longer charge, do you have to pay them back.
Read the OP. The tp insurer, having accepted liability, are refusing to pay this loss? Why, if they are obligated to?
Do you think they'd have to pay his lost lotto jackpot if the claim stopped him from buying his ticket? What if he had a ming vase in the boot worth £3m? Would they haver to pay for that. Is that a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accident? Where do you draw the line on what losses you can claim back.
You can not claim for losses that are too remote from the initial incident, which increased premiums are.Read the OP. The tp insurer, having accepted liability, are refusing to pay this loss? Why, if they are obligated to?
Do you think they'd have to pay his lost lotto jackpot if the claim stopped him from buying his ticket? What if he had a ming vase in the boot worth £3m? Would they haver to pay for that. Is that a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accident? Where do you draw the line on what losses you can claim back.
In your example, the ming vase could be claimed for, the lottery ticket not.
There is a huge amount of case law and precedent around this, all of which is far more complex than the simple approach taken on here
LoonR1 said:
You can not claim for losses that are too remote from the initial incident, which increased premiums are.
In your example, the ming vase could be claimed for, the lottery ticket not.
There is a huge amount of case law and precedent around this, all of which is far more complex than the simple approach taken on here
I think if you were behind a vehicle marked "Ming Vase Transportation Ltd", then it would be reasonable to assume that by hitting the vehicle, you might damage a ming vase. But that aside, I don't think a court would think it a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Would make an interesting case.In your example, the ming vase could be claimed for, the lottery ticket not.
There is a huge amount of case law and precedent around this, all of which is far more complex than the simple approach taken on here
Personal injury of course does not have to be reasonably foreseeable, the eggshell skull principle applies.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
surveyor and deva link....LoonR1 seems to agree with a twit like me. Your thoughts?
That's because you're right.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think if you were behind a vehicle marked "Ming Vase Transportation Ltd", then it would be reasonable to assume that by hitting the vehicle, you might damage a ming vase. But that aside, I don't think a court would think it a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Would make an interesting case.
Personal injury of course does not have to be reasonably foreseeable, the eggshell skull principle applies.
But there's no compulsion on me to do that, just as I don't have to have a sign saying, caution passenger and driver on board. People are more valuable than most items.Personal injury of course does not have to be reasonably foreseeable, the eggshell skull principle applies.
The fact is that it is reasonable for me to transport my ming vase in the car, it was damaged as a result of your niegligence, therefore you need to put it right. There will always be a discussion as to the way it was transported and was it secure, so there will probably be some contribution to the negiglence, just as if I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, but it will not exclude the claim entirely.
Deva Link said:
Easy. Get quotes with and without the no-fault accident.
Don't forget to claim for diminution of value too, as the repaired car will now be worth less then one that hasn't been crashed into.
You can't claim for increased premiums.Don't forget to claim for diminution of value too, as the repaired car will now be worth less then one that hasn't been crashed into.
Diminution of value is very, very difficult too. Unless you crystallise the loss by selling the car and get a clear valuation pre and post accident. If you don't crystallise the loss, then it becomes less each year. Plus you would have to declare the accident on sale to confirm this diminution.
Massive can of worms, that is rarely orth the hassle. Few insurers will pay it and will letit run to court, more often than not winning so you have to cover the costs.
I was wondering the same. My insurance goes up about £100-£150 when I declare my non fault claim.
I mentioned this to my insurance when I was sorting it all out (both with Elephant). They said to contact them nearer the time (crash was in January, insurance is due in September) and they'll try and sort something out.
What they keep saying is 'we will put you in the same position as before the crash'. To me, that means paying premiums of what it would be before the crash.
I mentioned this to my insurance when I was sorting it all out (both with Elephant). They said to contact them nearer the time (crash was in January, insurance is due in September) and they'll try and sort something out.
What they keep saying is 'we will put you in the same position as before the crash'. To me, that means paying premiums of what it would be before the crash.
Ki3r said:
I was wondering the same. My insurance goes up about £100-£150 when I declare my non fault claim.
I mentioned this to my insurance when I was sorting it all out (both with Elephant). They said to contact them nearer the time (crash was in January, insurance is due in September) and they'll try and sort something out.
What they keep saying is 'we will put you in the same position as before the crash'. To me, that means paying premiums of what it would be before the crash.
It might mean that to you, but it doesn't mean that in Law.I mentioned this to my insurance when I was sorting it all out (both with Elephant). They said to contact them nearer the time (crash was in January, insurance is due in September) and they'll try and sort something out.
What they keep saying is 'we will put you in the same position as before the crash'. To me, that means paying premiums of what it would be before the crash.
This is what I mean by the legal scenario being far more complex than the simple approach taken here.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff