Driver admitting liability wants to go through insurance?
Discussion
jamieduff1981 said:
Some pretty bad advice here to be honest. Don't tell your insurer at your own peril. It's in your contract to inform them of any accident you're involved in. If you don't, you're in breach of contract and your insurance will be null and void if you need to claim yourself later. You're just going to have to suck it up and get on with life. It's all part of the joys of motoring...
Physician heal thyself.The non disclosure of the claim is extremely unlikely to lead to avoidance of the policy. Were you suggesting avoidance ab initio, or just from the date the claim happened btw?
What's more likely currently is that the OP would have to pay an additional premium if he claimed, or was caught out by his insurer doing a CUE check on inception.
Of course that may change if the insurer could prove that the non-fault claim would make him an unacceptable risk to them, which is extremely unlikely.
Next year the new Consumer Insurance Act may change this and any non-disclosure would lead to the claim only being paid as a percentage of the actual premium paid.
Loon,
I used to deal with litigated claims on behalf of an insurer based up here in Manchester. In the majoriy of cases where there was non declaration of a speeding offence or other minor non delcaration, the insurer used to tell the insured to just cough up the difference in premium and they'd still be on cover. In most instances, this was in cases where the third party claim was sizeable and there was a dispute on liability so it was in the insurer's interests to make sure the insured was on board and provided their witness evidence at any final trial.
I've been out of the game for a while so does this still happen or have commercial / financial interests put a stop to this type of thing?
I used to deal with litigated claims on behalf of an insurer based up here in Manchester. In the majoriy of cases where there was non declaration of a speeding offence or other minor non delcaration, the insurer used to tell the insured to just cough up the difference in premium and they'd still be on cover. In most instances, this was in cases where the third party claim was sizeable and there was a dispute on liability so it was in the insurer's interests to make sure the insured was on board and provided their witness evidence at any final trial.
I've been out of the game for a while so does this still happen or have commercial / financial interests put a stop to this type of thing?
KungFuPanda said:
Loon,
I used to deal with litigated claims on behalf of an insurer based up here in Manchester. In the majoriy of cases where there was non declaration of a speeding offence or other minor non delcaration, the insurer used to tell the insured to just cough up the difference in premium and they'd still be on cover. In most instances, this was in cases where the third party claim was sizeable and there was a dispute on liability so it was in the insurer's interests to make sure the insured was on board and provided their witness evidence at any final trial.
I've been out of the game for a while so does this still happen or have commercial / financial interests put a stop to this type of thing?
Yep see this post from earlier (relevant bit in bold:I used to deal with litigated claims on behalf of an insurer based up here in Manchester. In the majoriy of cases where there was non declaration of a speeding offence or other minor non delcaration, the insurer used to tell the insured to just cough up the difference in premium and they'd still be on cover. In most instances, this was in cases where the third party claim was sizeable and there was a dispute on liability so it was in the insurer's interests to make sure the insured was on board and provided their witness evidence at any final trial.
I've been out of the game for a while so does this still happen or have commercial / financial interests put a stop to this type of thing?
LoonR1 said:
Physician heal thyself.
The non disclosure of the claim is extremely unlikely to lead to avoidance of the policy. Were you suggesting avoidance ab initio, or just from the date the claim happened btw?
What's more likely currently is that the OP would have to pay an additional premium if he claimed, or was caught out by his insurer doing a CUE check on inception.
Of course that may change if the insurer could prove that the non-fault claim would make him an unacceptable risk to them, which is extremely unlikely.
Next year the new Consumer Insurance Act may change this and any non-disclosure would lead to the claim only being paid as a percentage of the actual premium paid.
The non disclosure of the claim is extremely unlikely to lead to avoidance of the policy. Were you suggesting avoidance ab initio, or just from the date the claim happened btw?
What's more likely currently is that the OP would have to pay an additional premium if he claimed, or was caught out by his insurer doing a CUE check on inception.
Of course that may change if the insurer could prove that the non-fault claim would make him an unacceptable risk to them, which is extremely unlikely.
Next year the new Consumer Insurance Act may change this and any non-disclosure would lead to the claim only being paid as a percentage of the actual premium paid.
Hopefully you can get this sorted mate. I was recently hit in a car park, the guy admitted it straight away and then when he found out the cost of repair he claimed on his insurance against me, saying i drove into him! I'll probably have to drop my claim against him (no witnesses) or it will cost me my no claims discount and excess. There are some real tw*ts out there!
gavgavgav said:
How much is a door for this this car from a breaker, £50 tops?
With respect, why should my son have to put up with a door from a scrapyard on his car?It was in first class condition before this.
He is very lucky witnesses were present at the time.
Thanks to all for the helpful replies btw, appreciated...
rocketdogbert said:
Civil court for uninsured losses, no need to be out of pocket.
OP insurance company gives him an estimate of likely increase in premiums over the next year/two years, claim that amount back from third party, simple
John
Why does this crap come up every time on these threads?OP insurance company gives him an estimate of likely increase in premiums over the next year/two years, claim that amount back from third party, simple
John
It is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
LoonR1 said:
Why does this great idea come up every time on these threads? Don't know why I didn't post it first.
However, to answer my own asinine ranting, it is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
How so? Do you know when the OP's insurance is due for renewal? What's the time stipulation for being "too remote", and what legislation covers it?However, to answer my own asinine ranting, it is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
ta in advance
LoonR1 said:
Why does this crap come up every time on these threads?
It is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
...because there have been examples on here of people who have recovered the additional premium.It is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
There was also a post from someone whose premium went down when he added a no-fault accident!
Deva Link said:
...because there have been examples on here of people who have recovered the additional premium.
There was also a post from someone whose premium went down when he added a no-fault accident!
No there have been post from people either claiming to have done it and / or kicking up a stink and getting their insurer to drop the additional charge. The latter is not an example of recovering it from the TP insurer btw.There was also a post from someone whose premium went down when he added a no-fault accident!
Here's a good example of remoteness, that is used all the time:
You are on the way to buy your lottery ticket, to play the numbers you have played since the beginning of the Lottery and can evidence this via every ticket since the launch in 1993. Unfortunately on the way you are involved in a non-fault crash and whilst dealing with this the lottery terminals close.
Your numbers come up with a jackpot of £100m.
You can not successfully sue me for this loss.
In terms of insurance, there is no compulsion on you to insure with an insurer that increases premiums after a non-fault accident. Some actually reduce the premium, so do you think the payout should be reduced? Thre are too many factors between now and renewal that will affect pricing. There is no way to predict years into the future as to what it will do to a premium. Claims can not be left wide open for years after the judgement.
Simple really, but feel free to believe the b
ks, I'll just stick with donkeys years of experience of insurance and litigation.rocketdogbert said:
LoonR1 said:
Why does this great idea come up every time on these threads? Don't know why I didn't post it first.
However, to answer my own asinine ranting, it is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
How so? Do you know when the OP's insurance is due for renewal? What's the time stipulation for being "too remote", and what legislation covers it?However, to answer my own asinine ranting, it is too remote a loss to be recoverable.
ta in advance
It's been established by president years ago that increased insurance premiums are non recoverable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in dreamland.
Wacky Racer said:
With respect, why should my son have to put up with a door from a scrapyard on his car?
It was in first class condition before this.
He is very lucky witnesses were present at the time.
Thanks to all for the helpful replies btw, appreciated...
I was giving what may be a cheaper option than either claiming or respraying.It was in first class condition before this.
He is very lucky witnesses were present at the time.
Thanks to all for the helpful replies btw, appreciated...
And, it's clearly morally wrong for him to be paying for this in any way.
LoonR1 said:
Simple really, but feel free to believe the bks, I'll just stick with donkeys years of experience of insurance and litigation.
I don't know why you'd think it's bks, I'll just stick with donkeys years of experience of insurance and litigation.ks, you write enough of it yourself with completely irrelevant examples. Who cares how claimants achieve a refund of their extra premium, the fact is that it's been demonstrated that it's possible. Or in other cases the issue may not even arise.
Deva Link said:
I don't know why you'd think it's bks, you write enough of it yourself with completely irrelevant examples.
Who cares how claimants achieve a refund of their extra premium, the fact is that it's been demonstrated that it's possible. Or in other cases the issue may not even arise.
Getting a refund for complaining is not the same as what was suggested below. The first suggestion was to run it through the civil court.ks, you write enough of it yourself with completely irrelevant examples. Who cares how claimants achieve a refund of their extra premium, the fact is that it's been demonstrated that it's possible. Or in other cases the issue may not even arise.
The concept of remoteness is well established in UK Law, shame you choose to ignore that.
rocketdogbert said:
Civil court for uninsured losses, no need to be out of pocket.
OP insurance company gives him an estimate of likely increase in premiums over the next year/two years, claim that amount back from third party, simple
John
OP insurance company gives him an estimate of likely increase in premiums over the next year/two years, claim that amount back from third party, simple
John
Wacky Racer said:
With respect, why should my son have to put up with a door from a scrapyard on his car?
It was in first class condition before this.
He is very lucky witnesses were present at the time.
Thanks to all for the helpful replies btw, appreciated...
well that explains why I was thinking the asda car park looked like the one in Rawtenstall. It was in first class condition before this.
He is very lucky witnesses were present at the time.
Thanks to all for the helpful replies btw, appreciated...
could always contact 'anniesdad' on here. he is Steve Greensmith at http://www.europaconsultants.co.uk
he looked after my accident a few years ago when a van ran into the back of my MX5.
yes you still need to inform your insurance company. but this way they'll pick your car up and drop off a hire car. get yours fixed at an approved garage and return the fixed car back to you. The advatange is you dont have to shell out your excess while the insurance companys argue for a few months over whoes fault it is... before returning your excess. Europa will deal with the 3rd party and their insurance for you.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff