Someone crashed into my car today

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

LoonR1 said:

The nearest I saw was someone complaining to their own insurers about the hike (Admiral I think) who decided to make an ex gratis payment to get him to go away. Nothing at all to do with claiming from the other side and a duffexample if ever there was one.

The question we need to ask is: Should you be able to claim for increased insurance costs from the party responsible? To me this:

poing said:

I believe someone on here managed to claim for that as part of the settlement though because they argued that the point of insurance is not to leave you worse off so he wanted the difference back to cover the increased premiums for the next few years.

makes sense. - It's not the OP's fault that someone crashed into his car so why should he, rather than the person who crashed, have to pay the increase in premium that may result?

So how do you prove you're worse off, when there are people on this thread saying that it made no difference to them?

The primary overriding issue here is you are claiming for potential future losses, which are not definite. Therefore there is no hope of a successful claim. Even something as defined as missing the deadline to buy your lottery ticket which would have been a winner is not a valid claim.

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

So how do you prove you're worse off, when there are people on this thread saying that it made no difference to them?

The primary overriding issue here is you are claiming for potential future losses, which are not definite. Therefore there is no hope of a successful claim. Even something as defined as missing the deadline to buy your lottery ticket which would have been a winner is not a valid claim.

At renewal time, quote with the non-fault, then without it. Charge any difference back to the liable party. Repeat for the 5 (?) years the claim stays recorded.

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

At renewal time, quote with the non-fault, then without it. Charge any difference back to the liable party. Repeat for the 5 (?) years the claim stays recorded.

And do what? That for the next five years? What if some don't charge more? Insufficient to stand up in court and a claim is settled in full,and final on defined losses, not future potential ones.

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

And do what? That for the next five years? What if some don't charge more? Insufficient to stand up in court and a claim is settled in full,and final on defined losses, not future potential ones.

Yes. Maybe that's wrong and exceptions should be made. - If the whole point in insurance is to compensate you for losses, it's not doing it's job if someone crashes into your car then you lose money by having to pay increased premiums for the next 5 years.

Anyway, if you wanted it settled quickly I'm sure these losses could be calculated. - All you'd have to do is compare some simulated quotes. - A computer could do this in seconds.

[750turbo]

robdcfc said:

Im a decent tradesman and that's a write off!

First guess would be circa 3.5k to repair.

I have seen far worse repaired.

Still, I will leave it at that, as most people know better. (Good job I have not worked in the Motor Trade all my life, or I may be accused of spouting bks!)

[Clivey]

750turbo said:

I have seen far worse repaired.

Even if the car's only worth about £2k?

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

Yes. Maybe that's wrong and exceptions should be made. - If the whole point in insurance is to compensate you for losses, it's not doing it's job if someone crashes into your car then you lose money by having to pay increased premiums for the next 5 years.

Anyway, if you wanted it settled quickly I'm sure these losses could be calculated. - All you'd have to do is compare some simulated quotes. - A computer could do this in seconds.

Then every single claim would be an exception and rulings would be beyond the remit of the courts to rule on.

Not to worry though, you keep ignoring the legal framework.

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

Then every single claim would be an exception and rulings would be beyond the remit of the courts to rule on.

Not to worry though, you keep ignoring the legal framework.

Just because something is done a certain way doesn't mean that it's the only way possible. Thinking like that we'd never have invented anything and we'd all still be scratching around in the dirt.

[sw67]

I had 2 no fault claims in 2009 and my insurance has not gone up over the last 4 years. Infact my insurance now is cheaper than its ever been.

It might be that i didnt need to tick the box regarding claims for injurys

[rscott]

Hopefully the Saab lights are available again - I had a failure of one of the LED units in mine about 18 months ago and there were no replacements available through Saab Parts. They had to replace it with the board from a light with a broken lens.

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

Just because something is done a certain way doesn't mean that it's the only way possible. Thinking like that we'd never have invented anything and we'd all still be scratching around in the dirt.

So when the legal side will ways throw out a claim like this how do you propose to go about it

Bear ininsured the posters who have not paid more and / or have had a drop. Do you pay back then?

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

So when the legal side will ways throw out a claim like this how do you propose to go about it

Change the way the law works with regards to this. Establish new precedent.

LoonR1 said:

Bear ininsured the posters who have not paid more and / or have had a drop. Do you pay back then?

If you actually read my posts, you'll see how I propose to deal with the situation. - Either deal with it at renewal time and send a bill to the party responsible or use the system that generates the renewal quote to tell you what the difference would be.

"Computer says 'No'" isn't the answer to everything and doesn't encourage progress.

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

LoonR1 said:

So when the legal side will ways throw out a claim like this how do you propose to go about it

Change the way the law works with regards to this. Establish new precedent.

LoonR1 said:

Bear ininsured the posters who have not paid more and / or have had a drop. Do you pay back then?

If you actually read my posts, you'll see how I propose to deal with the situation. - Either deal with it at renewal time and send a bill to the party responsible or use the system that generates the renewal quote to tell you what the difference would be.

"Computer says 'No'" isn't the answer to everything and doesn't encourage progress.

Who do you bill? I'd tell you to FRO if you sent me a bill personally and I'd do the same with the letters from other insurers sent to me on a professional basis.

[aw51 121565]

OP, please do let us know when you start getting the unsolicited telephone calls offering you personal injury compensation .

This will at least give a clue who sold your details (it might be the repairer, it might be the insurer if the calls start before the car goes in for repair, etc).

[ToothbrushMan]

The beetle is a write off if its value is £2k.
New rear quarter and rear suspension looks like its folded under.paint alone will be at least a grand at insurance repair rates.

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

Who do you bill? I'd tell you to FRO if you sent me a bill personally and I'd do the same with the letters from other insurers sent to me on a professional basis.

The bill would go to the responsible party's insurer just as the repair bill for your car would. But you already know that and are just being obtuse. The point of insurance it to restore you to the position you were in pre-accident. - That means not paying extra insurance for the next 5 years. I had a non-fault claim when I was 19 (someone damaged my parked car) and was just about bent over at renewal time - the renewal quote was nearly double. I don't think the "not at fault" party should be the ones baring this cost.

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

The bill would go to the responsible party's insurer just as the repair bill for your car would. But you already know that and are just being obtuse. The point of insurance it to restore you to the position you were in pre-accident. - That means not paying extra insurance for the next 5 years. I had a non-fault claim when I was 19 (someone damaged my parked car) and was just about bent over at renewal time - the renewal quote was nearly double. I don't think the "not at fault" party should be the ones baring this cost.

But you don't pay more in every case, as evidenced by some on here already.

I am Head of Claims for one of the largest UK insurers. You can send me as many bills as you like and I'll tell you to FRO. There is no obligation on me to pay the bill you send me, as it is a non-recoverable "loss".

[sandman77]

Just had a call from the third parties insurers. They have taken full responsibility and the accident repair centre are going to phone me on Monday to arrange collection of our car for repair. Enterprise car hire are also going to call to arrange a hire car for us.
They advised us to phone our insurers and advise them of this. They also said we wouldn't be registered as having made a claim.
So what happens come renewal time. I can say "no" about having made any claims. Can I also say no when asked if I have been involved in an accident? The car was empty when it was hit.

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

But you don't pay more in every case, as evidenced by some on here already.

Of course. If that were the case there'd be nothing to worry about.

LoonR1 said:

I am Head of Claims for one of the largest UK insurers. You can send me as many bills as you like and I'll tell you to FRO. There is no obligation on me to pay the bill you send me, as it is a non-recoverable "loss".

You're not getting this are you? I am fully aware of how things are done now and do not dispute what you say about current "procedure". - I am simply suggesting how things could be made better in the future.

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

LoonR1 said:

But you don't pay more in every case, as evidenced by some on here already.

Of course. If that were the case there'd be nothing to worry about.

LoonR1 said:

I am Head of Claims for one of the largest UK insurers. You can send me as many bills as you like and I'll tell you to FRO. There is no obligation on me to pay the bill you send me, as it is a non-recoverable "loss".

You're not getting this are you? I am fully aware of how things are done now and do not dispute what you say about current "procedure". - I am simply suggesting how things could be made better in the future.

OK then, change the law, alhough there are far better changes you could make to have a bigger impact on premiums.