Someone crashed into my car today

[Jim AK]

750turbo said:

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!)

Think I would like to sell you all my old cars then 750. That Beetle would not retail much over £1600, even with low miles.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Clivey said:

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.

So you think the victim of a non fault accident should be financially compensated for all losses.

So, you are the guilty person in a non fault accident. You run up the back of someone on a saturday evening. The bloke you hit was on his way to buy his lotto ticket. He had one of those laminated plastic things like I have, as he does the same numbers every week. Because of your negligence, he misses the deadline. His numbers come up. Are you happy for your insurer to pay him £7.5m to compensate him for his loss? If not, why not?

How about this one. The person you hit gets penalised and his insurers load his premium by 10%. The accident is on a Friday but on the Saturday he wins the lotto. And buys a Bugatti Veyron, even though he is only 18. His new insurance bill is £30K. If it hadn't been for you hitting his Corsa, it would have been £27K. Are you happy for your insurance co to pay him £3K compensation for the next 3 yrs to cover his loss, even though the car you hit was only worth £500? If not, why not.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

No answer then?

[Clivey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No answer then?

Really?

If you must know, I was out last night and although I saw your post before I went, didn't have time to reply.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So you think the victim of a non fault accident should be financially compensated for all losses.

Reasonable ones. - Of course, we can all make-up far-fetched scenarios such as the entrepreneur on his way to make a billion Dollar deal.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

How about this one. The person you hit gets penalised and his insurers load his premium by 10%. The accident is on a Friday but on the Saturday he wins the lotto. And buys a Bugatti Veyron, even though he is only 18. His new insurance bill is £30K. If it hadn't been for you hitting his Corsa, it would have been £27K. Are you happy for your insurance co to pay him £3K compensation for the next 3 yrs to cover his loss, even though the car you hit was only worth £500? If not, why not.

In short; yes. - What does the value to the current car matter? The "victim" may just be about to trade in their 10-year-old Jag for a brand new one and it wouldn't be fair to them if they got hit with a higher premium due to my mistake.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

So it's not reasonable to pay someone's lotto losses, but it is reasonable to pay the extra for the supercar bought with their lotto winnings! Very sensible.

What if the insurer charge nothing for one non fault claim, but a loading for 2 non fault claims. Who pays the extra? The tp insurer on the 2nd non fault claim, or do they split it 50/50? If it is 50/50 , how does the responsible insurer in the first claim build this into their reserves?

[Clivey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What if the insurer charge nothing for one non fault claim, but a loading for 2 non fault claims. Who pays the extra? The tp insurer on the 2nd non fault claim, or do they split it 50/50? If it is 50/50 , how does the responsible insurer in the first claim build this into their reserves?

I don't understand that (bold) bit.

[LoonR1]

Clivey said:

I don't understand that (bold) bit.

When we have a claim notified we put the money to one side for want of a better description. We have to do this to ensure we can meet all out liabilities. So we have to plan and forecast well in advance.

A further question. If I can now recover the increase in premium from the other side, what's to stop me loading the premium by a £billion? It's a nice income stream for me.

[swisstoni]

sandman77 said:

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.

It's alright someone assuring you on the phone that nothing is recorded against you, but what if this is not correct. What I find difficult is that you cannot see what has been recorded in the insurance industry database(s) about you. Therefore you actually don't always know what to say when asked about your history.

This leaves you open to an insurer saying that you failed to fully disclose your history when you applied. This potentially gives them a way out of paying in the event of a claim.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Clivey said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What if the insurer charge nothing for one non fault claim, but a loading for 2 non fault claims. Who pays the extra? The tp insurer on the 2nd non fault claim, or do they split it 50/50? If it is 50/50 , how does the responsible insurer in the first claim build this into their reserves?

I don't understand that (bold) bit.

As LoonR1 explained. You hit a tp. Your fault. Your insurer settle his claim, but as this is his 1st non fault claim, there is no extra to pay on his own insurance. So your insurer think the claim is settled. 18 months later, he has another non fault claim, and now his premium is affected, as his insurer charge extra for 2 non fault claims. So he comes back to you/your insurer 18 months after the event for your contribution. How would your insurer budget for this??? How do their actuaries work out the funding of ongoing possible liabilities?

[mcxuk1]

Some insurers load your premium for a non-fault accident and other don't. The insurers that do load don't load it by a set amount therefore the loss is too remote to be claimed back from the at fault insurer. There are so many other variables that come into play with your insurance premium that claiming back the 'increase' due to the accident is nigh on impossible.

[LoonR1]

swisstoni said:

What I find difficult is that you cannot see what has been recorded in the insurance industry database(s) about you. Therefore you actually don't always know what to say when asked about your history.

This leaves you open to an insurer saying that you failed to fully disclose your history when you applied. This potentially gives them a way out of paying in the event of a claim.

Yes you can here

http://www.insurancedatabases.co.uk/media/2893/dat...

That took 20 seconds to find via google

[Bronze]

Beetle will likely be written off, the whole rear quarter is so deformed it broke the rear glass, add to that the caved in rear wing and the fact it hit so hard even the light unit is hanging out it'll cost far more to repair than it's worth. An alarming amount of cars get written off just because they're economically non-viable, not because of actual chassis damage. A real shame but that's how insurance works these days.

As for your Saab, it did come off well! Things not to hit: Boulders, trees, lamposts, Saabs, Volvos.

Edited by Bronze on Monday 13th January 11:09

[LoonR1]

Bronze said:

An alarming amount of cars get written off just because they're economically non-viable, not because of actual chassis damage. A real shame but that's how insurance works these days.

That's how it's always worked. We don't incur unnecessary repair cost. If we did them premiums would be higher still.

[Bronze]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So you think the victim of a non fault accident should be financially compensated for all losses.

So, you are the guilty person in a non fault accident. You run up the back of someone on a saturday evening. The bloke you hit was on his way to buy his lotto ticket. He had one of those laminated plastic things like I have, as he does the same numbers every week. Because of your negligence, he misses the deadline. His numbers come up. Are you happy for your insurer to pay him £7.5m to compensate him for his loss? If not, why not?

How about this one. The person you hit gets penalised and his insurers load his premium by 10%. The accident is on a Friday but on the Saturday he wins the lotto. And buys a Bugatti Veyron, even though he is only 18. His new insurance bill is £30K. If it hadn't been for you hitting his Corsa, it would have been £27K. Are you happy for your insurance co to pay him £3K compensation for the next 3 yrs to cover his loss, even though the car you hit was only worth £500? If not, why not.

Except that insurance realllly doesn't work like that. Hypothetical though the scenarios may be.

[Bronze]

LoonR1 said:

That's how it's always worked. We don't incur unnecessary repair cost. If we did them premiums would be higher still.

The point is the overall higher cost of repairs from accident repair centres and overall cost of parts and the demand to use new parts and nothing else has driven up the cost of the average repair, coupled with generally lower car values in an increasingly throw away society has seen an increase in the trend of cars being written off.

I never disputed that's how insurance works, just more so these days for above stated reasons.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Bronze said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So you think the victim of a non fault accident should be financially compensated for all losses.

So, you are the guilty person in a non fault accident. You run up the back of someone on a saturday evening. The bloke you hit was on his way to buy his lotto ticket. He had one of those laminated plastic things like I have, as he does the same numbers every week. Because of your negligence, he misses the deadline. His numbers come up. Are you happy for your insurer to pay him £7.5m to compensate him for his loss? If not, why not?

How about this one. The person you hit gets penalised and his insurers load his premium by 10%. The accident is on a Friday but on the Saturday he wins the lotto. And buys a Bugatti Veyron, even though he is only 18. His new insurance bill is £30K. If it hadn't been for you hitting his Corsa, it would have been £27K. Are you happy for your insurance co to pay him £3K compensation for the next 3 yrs to cover his loss, even though the car you hit was only worth £500? If not, why not.

Except that insurance realllly doesn't work like that. Hypothetical though the scenarios may be.

I agree it doesn't work like that, and I don't think it should. I'm quite happy with the way it works now. Clivey doesn't agree.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mcxuk1 said:

Some insurers load your premium for a non-fault accident and other don't. The insurers that do load don't load it by a set amount therefore the loss is too remote to be claimed back from the at fault insurer. There are so many other variables that come into play with your insurance premium that claiming back the 'increase' due to the accident is nigh on impossible.

100% right.

[swisstoni]

LoonR1 said:

swisstoni said:

What I find difficult is that you cannot see what has been recorded in the insurance industry database(s) about you. Therefore you actually don't always know what to say when asked about your history.

This leaves you open to an insurer saying that you failed to fully disclose your history when you applied. This potentially gives them a way out of paying in the event of a claim.

Yes you can here

http://www.insurancedatabases.co.uk/media/2893/dat...

That took 20 seconds to find via google

So all I have to do is send proof of identity, £10, and wait 6 weeks. What could be easier!

[LoonR1]

swisstoni said:

So all I have to do is send proof of identity, £10, and wait 6 weeks. What could be easier!

All of those are requirements of the DPA. The 6 weeks quoted is the maximum allowable and you'll get it much sooner than that.

[robdcfc]

Bronze said:

LoonR1 said:

That's how it's always worked. We don't incur unnecessary repair cost. If we did them premiums would be higher still.

The point is the overall higher cost of repairs from accident repair centres and overall cost of parts and the demand to use new parts and nothing else has driven up the cost of the average repair, coupled with generally lower car values in an increasingly throw away society has seen an increase in the trend of cars being written off.

I never disputed that's how insurance works, just more so these days for above stated reasons.

Higher cost of repairs??


Do you know how much most repair shops are screwed down to by insurers for labour?

Not always new parts either but the insurers require new oem/pattern as they give a guarantee for the work, you can have a "contract repair" with used parts if it saves a write off but no matter what that beetle in the photo is dead!