Question about non-fault claims on insurance
Discussion
I'm not overly familiar with the ins and outs of insurance, I only recently found out that a non-fault claim on your insurance would result in a rise in your premium. It seems unfair, but I understand statistically why the premiums rise.
My question is: If you got hit by someone who accepted full liability for the incident, obviously a non-fault claim on your own insurance will mean increased premiums. But if you claimed off the 3rd party's insurers and didn't notify your own - would that still mean your premium increases? Is that even legal, or are you legally obliged to notify your own insurers?
Obviously not involving insurers at all is always a way to go.. i.e. cash from the other party if it's a small bump.
Cheers
My question is: If you got hit by someone who accepted full liability for the incident, obviously a non-fault claim on your own insurance will mean increased premiums. But if you claimed off the 3rd party's insurers and didn't notify your own - would that still mean your premium increases? Is that even legal, or are you legally obliged to notify your own insurers?
Obviously not involving insurers at all is always a way to go.. i.e. cash from the other party if it's a small bump.
Cheers
I think you are obliged to notify your insurers, unsure if that is legally obliged or via their T&C's.
However, most insurance companies won't care or raise premiums for a 3rd party, non-fault claim. I've just made a non-fault 3rd party claim where my insurance was due for re-newel the day after. Didn't make a difference what so ever.
However, most insurance companies won't care or raise premiums for a 3rd party, non-fault claim. I've just made a non-fault 3rd party claim where my insurance was due for re-newel the day after. Didn't make a difference what so ever.
The terms and conditions of your own policy will require you to inform your insurers of any accident whether or not you intend to make a claim.
Furthermore next time you apply for a policy the new insurer will ask (something like) "Have you had any accidents or claims in the last 5 years, regardless of fault and regardless of whether a claim was made". Obviously the truthful answer to that question would be "yes", and to answer "no" in the hope of getting a cheaper premium would be fraud.
(That said I might say "no" if I'd had a minor bump which I settled with a handful of cash. But not a significant accident which involved other insurers and will be recorded somewhere - too much risk of it coming back to bite me).
Furthermore next time you apply for a policy the new insurer will ask (something like) "Have you had any accidents or claims in the last 5 years, regardless of fault and regardless of whether a claim was made". Obviously the truthful answer to that question would be "yes", and to answer "no" in the hope of getting a cheaper premium would be fraud.
(That said I might say "no" if I'd had a minor bump which I settled with a handful of cash. But not a significant accident which involved other insurers and will be recorded somewhere - too much risk of it coming back to bite me).
I've now had two 'at fault claims' against me over the years, and neither has caused an increase in premium. In fact, my renewal came through today and it's nearly £100 cheaper than last year, and that includes the 4.5% increase in insurance tax. This is after a recent claim due to being victim of a hit and run by an uninsured driver (which is classed as an at fault claim on my record). Go figure?
The exact wording on my policy schedule is:
Driving history (applicable to any motor vehicle)
Have you or any person who may drive:
(a) been involved in any accident, claim or loss (including loss by fire, theft or malicious acts) irrespective of blame during the last five years?
Most policies have similar wording, so you must declare it.
I declared two non-fault accidents last year. Both were in my company car, which is insured on a fleet policy which covers any vehicle owned or leased by the company, and covers anybody driving with their permission. I am not named on that policy.
When I received my documents for the policy on my own car, it showed the first accident as my fault. Thinking it was an error, I called them and was informed that they had taken that information off the Claims Underwriting Exchange database. When I looked into it, I found out the other driver (uninsured scrote) hadn't paid my employer's insurer. The fleet management company had told me the driver paid for the damage from his own funds. What had actually happened was he paid the uninsured losses, but not the insurer's outlay, so it still showed on the database as being my fault.
Eventually the little tosser paid up, and the database has now been amended. It shows you though, that insurers do share data and they do check it, so it isn't worth the risk of trying to withhold information.
Driving history (applicable to any motor vehicle)
Have you or any person who may drive:
(a) been involved in any accident, claim or loss (including loss by fire, theft or malicious acts) irrespective of blame during the last five years?
Most policies have similar wording, so you must declare it.
I declared two non-fault accidents last year. Both were in my company car, which is insured on a fleet policy which covers any vehicle owned or leased by the company, and covers anybody driving with their permission. I am not named on that policy.
When I received my documents for the policy on my own car, it showed the first accident as my fault. Thinking it was an error, I called them and was informed that they had taken that information off the Claims Underwriting Exchange database. When I looked into it, I found out the other driver (uninsured scrote) hadn't paid my employer's insurer. The fleet management company had told me the driver paid for the damage from his own funds. What had actually happened was he paid the uninsured losses, but not the insurer's outlay, so it still showed on the database as being my fault.
Eventually the little tosser paid up, and the database has now been amended. It shows you though, that insurers do share data and they do check it, so it isn't worth the risk of trying to withhold information.
I had one of my companies vans reverse into my car a couple of years ago ,not claimed for on insurance by me but my company had my insurance details which they gave to their insurance company .
The repairs were done outside of the insurance as it was less than the company excess .
It showed on my insurance as a non fault claim .
It took a lot of argument to get it removed from the record .
The repairs were done outside of the insurance as it was less than the company excess .
It showed on my insurance as a non fault claim .
It took a lot of argument to get it removed from the record .
I had one of my companies vans reverse into my car a couple of years ago ,not claimed for on insurance by me but my company had my insurance details which they gave to their insurance company .
The repairs were done outside of the insurance as it was less than the company excess .
It showed on my insurance as a non fault claim .
It took a lot of argument to get it removed from the record .
The repairs were done outside of the insurance as it was less than the company excess .
It showed on my insurance as a non fault claim .
It took a lot of argument to get it removed from the record .
mjb1 said:
I've now had two 'at fault claims' against me over the years, and neither has caused an increase in premium. In fact, my renewal came through today and it's nearly £100 cheaper than last year, and that includes the 4.5% increase in insurance tax. This is after a recent claim due to being victim of a hit and run by an uninsured driver (which is classed as an at fault claim on my record). Go figure?
Wish mine did. My insurance renewel was £189, informed about a 50:50 claim and it's put it up to £320!
eybic said:
Ordinarily it will increase your premium as you will be considered to be more at risk of having another (maybe your driving style puts you in a position where you'll be hit again is how they see it)
That's not trueIt may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
snorky782 said:
That's not true
It may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
My car was written off whilst parked outside my house. Classed as a non fault claim and my premiums are lower now. Strangely when you do quotes with the claim, it's cheaper than without. (Confused.com)It may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
bmw535i said:
snorky782 said:
That's not true
It may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
My car was written off whilst parked outside my house. Classed as a non fault claim and my premiums are lower now. Strangely when you do quotes with the claim, it's cheaper than without. (Confused.com)It may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
snorky782 said:
eybic said:
Ordinarily it will increase your premium as you will be considered to be more at risk of having another (maybe your driving style puts you in a position where you'll be hit again is how they see it)
That's not trueIt may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
How most insurers would deem more likely to have another such claim is baffling. Unless they now consider legal parking more of a risk...
dukeboy749r said:
Exactly - the last non -fault claim I had, over five years ago, was for a young driver hitting my car whilst parked.
How most insurers would deem more likely to have another such claim is baffling.
Because for every 100 people who have their car hit whilst parked, maybe 5 or 10 of them had that happen to them because their personal circumstances put them in a higher risk category (regularly parking in a tight car park, parking in a narrow road etc).How most insurers would deem more likely to have another such claim is baffling.
If you drive to work and your office is next to a garage that modifies Subarus, I would guess that more young chavs will drive past your car than mine.
I've had three non-fault claims in my company car in the space of 18 months. The first (Jan '15) was the uninsured driver in my earlier post. The second (May '15) involved somebody reversing out of a parking space while I was stationary, waiting for a car ahead of me to finish manoeuvring.
At the time, the only insurance policy I had was a laid-up policy on my Elise. When I put it back on the road shortly after the second accident, the first was still outstanding due to the little scrote not paying up, but the second was settled very promptly and professionally by LV (third party's insurer).
When the uninsured scrote paid up, my broker told me the outstanding claim had put a 5% loading on my premium, which was then refunded. I cannot comment on the difference between having this non-fault claim and having no claims whatsoever as I did not have the same policy the year before.
In April this year, I was taking a right hand bend, which had a junction to the left with very clear give way markings. A car came out of this junction and hit me. I was told by the accident management company my employer uses that the third party insurer was disputing liability.
My renewal notice came through recently; it was roughly £670. When I advised them of the recent accident and outstanding claim, it went up to £770.
A few days ago (the day after my policy renewal
), the accident management company emailed me to say the other party had accepted liability. I forwarded this to my broker and I have received the amended documents with the new premium - £570! Getting whacked by another car has therefore knocked £100 (15%) off my premium!
At the time, the only insurance policy I had was a laid-up policy on my Elise. When I put it back on the road shortly after the second accident, the first was still outstanding due to the little scrote not paying up, but the second was settled very promptly and professionally by LV (third party's insurer).
When the uninsured scrote paid up, my broker told me the outstanding claim had put a 5% loading on my premium, which was then refunded. I cannot comment on the difference between having this non-fault claim and having no claims whatsoever as I did not have the same policy the year before.
In April this year, I was taking a right hand bend, which had a junction to the left with very clear give way markings. A car came out of this junction and hit me. I was told by the accident management company my employer uses that the third party insurer was disputing liability.
My renewal notice came through recently; it was roughly £670. When I advised them of the recent accident and outstanding claim, it went up to £770.
A few days ago (the day after my policy renewal
), the accident management company emailed me to say the other party had accepted liability. I forwarded this to my broker and I have received the amended documents with the new premium - £570! Getting whacked by another car has therefore knocked £100 (15%) off my premium!eybic said:
Ordinarily it will increase your premium as you will be considered to be more at risk of having another (maybe your driving style puts you in a position where you'll be hit again is how they see it)
My car was hit while parked on my drive. Freak accident involving a taxi avoiding hitting a cyclist. They put my premium up, despite saying they wouldn't.dukeboy749r said:
snorky782 said:
eybic said:
Ordinarily it will increase your premium as you will be considered to be more at risk of having another (maybe your driving style puts you in a position where you'll be hit again is how they see it)
That's not trueIt may suggest that to some insurers and they may increase your premium. To others it may suggest the opposite amd they will reduce your premium and to others it may tell them nothing at all amd the premium won't move.
See above for real life evidence of this.
How most insurers would deem more likely to have another such claim is baffling. Unless they now consider legal parking more of a risk...
Thats said each company will just look at its own statistics and base their prices on that.
Of course there will be exceptions where its really no fault, however thats what happens when risk is pooled into groups.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff