Insurance Question - Reclaiming Costs?
Discussion
A really quick insurance question ...
If you have a non-fault accident, which then needs to be listed on your insurance policy upon renewal, is it possible to recover the additional cost from the third party who was responsible? Come renewal time, the accident in question adds another £140 to my premium.
I can understand why, as potentially I'm seen as a higher risk. I've been involved in two other non-fault accidents before and swallowed the increases. However I've been told I shouldn't have to and that I can recover costs from the third party. Is this true and if so, how does one go about the process?
If it helps, my claim was handled by Europa Consultants, who have always been highly recommended on here
Cheers!
If you have a non-fault accident, which then needs to be listed on your insurance policy upon renewal, is it possible to recover the additional cost from the third party who was responsible? Come renewal time, the accident in question adds another £140 to my premium.
I can understand why, as potentially I'm seen as a higher risk. I've been involved in two other non-fault accidents before and swallowed the increases. However I've been told I shouldn't have to and that I can recover costs from the third party. Is this true and if so, how does one go about the process?
If it helps, my claim was handled by Europa Consultants, who have always been highly recommended on here
Cheers!
Good Q Ikemi - one that I have often wondered as well. If the increased insurance cost in the future is a result of the crash it therefore seems reasonable that you can claim that back from the other party - literally being put back into the position you were in before the accident.
Another aspect I have pondered is the loss of value of your vehicle. The advice when buying a used car is to avoid ones that have been damaged and repaired, and cars which have been damaged are harder to sell (or worth less) as a result. If your car is damaged in an accident and, despite being repaired is worth less then surely a consideration to cover this loss in value should be part of the claim?
Oli.
Another aspect I have pondered is the loss of value of your vehicle. The advice when buying a used car is to avoid ones that have been damaged and repaired, and cars which have been damaged are harder to sell (or worth less) as a result. If your car is damaged in an accident and, despite being repaired is worth less then surely a consideration to cover this loss in value should be part of the claim?
Oli.
zcacogp said:
Good Q Ikemi - one that I have often wondered as well. If the increased insurance cost in the future is a result of the crash it therefore seems reasonable that you can claim that back from the other party - literally being put back into the position you were in before the accident.
Another aspect I have pondered is the loss of value of your vehicle. The advice when buying a used car is to avoid ones that have been damaged and repaired, and cars which have been damaged are harder to sell (or worth less) as a result. If your car is damaged in an accident and, despite being repaired is worth less then surely a consideration to cover this loss in value should be part of the claim?
Oli.
The annoying thing is, it was the lightest of bumps! A woman reversed into the side of my front clam, which caused a crack to appear along the crest of the wheel arch. The repair specialist involved (Highly recommended on SELOC) advised for a new front clam, which increased the overall repair cost to £5700! I guess my car should be worth more with a new, clean front end!Another aspect I have pondered is the loss of value of your vehicle. The advice when buying a used car is to avoid ones that have been damaged and repaired, and cars which have been damaged are harder to sell (or worth less) as a result. If your car is damaged in an accident and, despite being repaired is worth less then surely a consideration to cover this loss in value should be part of the claim?
Oli.
I had thought as much. I'll suck up the costs. It was worth an ask though, seeing as someone told me I could do it! Thanks
I'm an insurance broker, and although I don't deal with motor insurance or claims, I had exactly this discussion with somebody I know who does.
My argument was that the purpose of an insurance policy is to indemnify the claimant following an insured loss, i.e. they should be in the same position financially as they were before the loss.
Had the non fault accident not occurred, then the not-at-fault driver would not otherwise have to pay the increased premium as a result of the accident.
The chap I was talking to agreed with me on this point, but proving the loss is only possible if the accident occurs say 2 weeks before renewal where terms have already been invited, and upon disclosing the accident, the insurer then increases the renewal premium. Anything else (i.e. quoting 6 months in advance with/without the accident declared) is irrelevant, as there's no guarantee the insurer's ratings will be the same come renewal. Likewise, you couldn't project the difference in premium 5 years in to the future, as other factors could affect subsequent renewals and you could end up gaining financially.
So in theory, it would be possible to claim the difference in premium, IF you could back up your claim with solid evidence. In reality, this is almost impossible, so the insurer will either reject the claim or apparently in some extremely rare cases, offer a settlement out of goodwill.
As far as I know, this hasn't been tested in court, but I'm willing to be corrected on this!
My argument was that the purpose of an insurance policy is to indemnify the claimant following an insured loss, i.e. they should be in the same position financially as they were before the loss.
Had the non fault accident not occurred, then the not-at-fault driver would not otherwise have to pay the increased premium as a result of the accident.
The chap I was talking to agreed with me on this point, but proving the loss is only possible if the accident occurs say 2 weeks before renewal where terms have already been invited, and upon disclosing the accident, the insurer then increases the renewal premium. Anything else (i.e. quoting 6 months in advance with/without the accident declared) is irrelevant, as there's no guarantee the insurer's ratings will be the same come renewal. Likewise, you couldn't project the difference in premium 5 years in to the future, as other factors could affect subsequent renewals and you could end up gaining financially.
So in theory, it would be possible to claim the difference in premium, IF you could back up your claim with solid evidence. In reality, this is almost impossible, so the insurer will either reject the claim or apparently in some extremely rare cases, offer a settlement out of goodwill.
As far as I know, this hasn't been tested in court, but I'm willing to be corrected on this!
Join the club. As far as I can understand the complex algorithms used by actuaries to calculate risk and the resultant insurance premium have identified a correlation between being involved in a non-fault accident and then being involved in another where you are at fault.
Short of it is you get hit so you are more likely to hit somebody else...makes no sense to be but they are the stats!
Short of it is you get hit so you are more likely to hit somebody else...makes no sense to be but they are the stats!
meh,
I think we can disprove most of the insurance nonsense about having more crashes after a claim - not had a prang in the last 11 years - an the last prang was pretty massive!
So anyway whats the insurer going to do if you don't tell them about a non fault incident? please provide real cases of any effects please.
I think we can disprove most of the insurance nonsense about having more crashes after a claim - not had a prang in the last 11 years - an the last prang was pretty massive!
So anyway whats the insurer going to do if you don't tell them about a non fault incident? please provide real cases of any effects please.
Tc24 said:
The chap I was talking to agreed with me on this point, but proving the loss is only possible if the accident occurs say 2 weeks before renewal where terms have already been invited, and upon disclosing the accident, the insurer then increases the renewal premium. Anything else (i.e. quoting 6 months in advance with/without the accident declared) is irrelevant, as there's no guarantee the insurer's ratings will be the same come renewal. Likewise, you couldn't project the difference in premium 5 years in to the future, as other factors could affect subsequent renewals and you could end up gaining financially.
You could just not disclose the accident when you first ask for a quote, nail it down as much as possible as you would normally and then disclose the accident and use whatever difference in premiums there is as evidence. I imagine you could extrapolate this across the next 5 years on a sliding scale.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff