Non fault claim: Can you claim back your excess?

[Chris71]

Here's a handy tip: Never go for a huge excess that amounts to very nearly the total value of your daily shed, thinking that you won't need it...



My policy quite clearly states that I have to pay the excess irrespective of fault (as I presume is standard?) But it was a very open-and-shut accident, so is there anyway I can claim back the excess on the other party's insurance? It's only £600, which I realise constitutes little more than a good lunch for some PHers, but I'm really strapped for cash currently.

Edited by Chris71 on Thursday 27th December 10:38

[Ozzie Osmond]

Yes, you can in theory claim your excess back from the other party. However, your policy probably says you can't claim anything from anyone without your insurer's consent. Further, unless the other party just pays up you would have to sue for it.

If you buy "legal protection cover" with your car insurance the lawyers claim back your excess for you. They will also reclaim for any car hire or other costs which may not be covered under your policy.

[randlemarcus]

Can you get the other parties insurer to deal with it direct, rather than getting yours to deal with it? You will need to inform them, but for information only.

[StottyZr]

If its non fault you don't need to involve your insurance at all (other than notifying them of the incident) so no excess is payable. This is unless their insurance isn't playing ball and you want to involve yours, then its a claim back process if they make you pay it

[Chris71]

Right, on speaking to my insurance company again it sounds like this isn't going to be an issue. I was told initially I would have to pay the excess, but I'm now told that due to the circumstances my excess is likely to be waived and my NCD retained.

So ... panic over.

[Ozzie Osmond]

StottyZr said:

If its non fault you don't need to involve your insurance at all (other than notifying them of the incident) so no excess is payable. This is unless their insurance isn't playing ball and you want to involve yours, then its a claim back process if they make you pay it

I will be very surprised if your insurance policy allows you to go around claiming against third parties on the basis that the "fault" was not yours, because of the risk of a counter-claim from the other side which could land your insurer with a huge bill over which they have had no control.

There is one near certainty in every collision - "it was the other bloke's fault"!

[barker22]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I will be very surprised if your insurance policy allows you to go around claiming against third parties on the basis that the "fault" was not yours, because of the risk of a counter-claim from the other side which could land your insurer with a huge bill over which they have had no control.

There is one near certainty in every collision - "it was the other bloke's fault"!

What do you think AMCs do?
What you have quoted above is the exact reason everyone's insurance is so high. The insurers have no control.

[StottyZr]

Ozzie Osmond said:

StottyZr said:

If its non fault you don't need to involve your insurance at all (other than notifying them of the incident) so no excess is payable. This is unless their insurance isn't playing ball and you want to involve yours, then its a claim back process if they make you pay it

I will be very surprised if your insurance policy allows you to go around claiming against third parties on the basis that the "fault" was not yours, because of the risk of a counter-claim from the other side which could land your insurer with a huge bill over which they have had no control.

There is one near certainty in every collision - "it was the other bloke's fault"!

I did it and it worked fine for me. Aslong as its clear cut whos at fault I don't think it matters (she crashed into my parked car for example)

[CYMR0]

barker22 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I will be very surprised if your insurance policy allows you to go around claiming against third parties on the basis that the "fault" was not yours, because of the risk of a counter-claim from the other side which could land your insurer with a huge bill over which they have had no control.

There is one near certainty in every collision - "it was the other bloke's fault"!

What do you think AMCs do?
What you have quoted above is the exact reason everyone's insurance is so high. The insurers have no control.

1. It's not a near-certainty or anything like it;
2. Where does the huge bill to the original insurer come from? The third party insurer won't voluntarily make their costs higher than they need be, because they still have a duty to mitigate if counter-claiming. (This is not quite true for AMCs but that's a different argument legally). So the claims process off a third party goes:

"I've had an accident and it was your guy wot dun it."
Then either "Yes, sorry about that" or "No, we're not paying, go talk to your own insurers."

If the former, the claimant's insurers aren't paying, and if the latter, there's nothing for them to pay for.

Even if new evidence comes to light and a decision to pay is changed (highly unlikely) then there's no reason to think that the third party insurer would have spent more (once their loss is mitigated) than the original insurer and anything incurred for which there is no liability on the at-fault party may not be recoverable anyway. So why would the original insurer have a problem with not being asked to pay for things upfront and spending time and effort getting them back from the at-fault party?

[Ozzie Osmond]

This from Direct Line policies,

"You must tell us as soon as reasonably possible about any incident which may lead to a claim under this policy.

a. You must not admit liability for or negotiate to settle any claim without our written permission.

b. We are entitled to:

• take over and carry out the negotiation, defence or settlement of any claim in your name, or in the name of any other person covered by this policy;

• take proceedings in your name, or in the name of any other person covered by this policy, to get back any money we have paid under this policy.

c. You must give us any information and help we need."

[CYMR0]

Ozzie Osmond said:

This from Direct Line policies,

"You must tell us as soon as reasonably possible about any incident which may lead to a claim under this policy.

a. You must not admit liability for or negotiate to settle any claim without our written permission.

b. We are entitled to:

• take over and carry out the negotiation, defence or settlement of any claim in your name, or in the name of any other person covered by this policy;

• take proceedings in your name, or in the name of any other person covered by this policy, to get back any money we have paid under this policy.

c. You must give us any information and help we need."

Point a. relates to a claim against the original policy, which this would not be.

Point b. means for instance that, in the event that the policyholder is refusing to negotiate and wants to bring proceedings, the insurer can step in and say "Nope, you've had your compensation" - not that there is too much compensation going to the claimant (or refusing to settle when the policyholder is the defendant). The second part actually refers to the insurer's right to recover its own losses from the third party insurer; which is exactly the effect that claiming directly off the third party has.

Point c. isn't relevant one way or another to whether you can claim against a third party.