Small scrape: 3rd party admited liability - but ?

[Nice But Dim]

My friend has just been involved in a minor scrape. he was stationary and an articulated lorry cut him up resulting him losing the outer housing of his passenger wingmirror

The lorry was a DHL vehicle and they have already admitted liability and agreed to the repair and he will not incur any costs.

But does he need to advise his own insurance company as "information only" making it clear that no claim will be made - or does he leave well alone ?

Cheers

[Geekman]

Technically he probably should, but if I was him I'd leave well alone.

[dazwalsh]

I wouldn't, you never know what piss boiling excuse they would come up with to hike premiums, despite it not costing them a penny.

[wolves_wanderer]

I wouldn't.

[Spare tyre]

dazwalsh said:

I wouldn't, you never know what piss boiling excuse they would come up with to hike premiums, despite it not costing them a penny.

they will say he is likely to have accidents because he had one

Its totally bonkers


My sisters car got hit when it was a day old when parked on the edge of a road. She had to claim via her insurance etc

she was told she parks it where it is known to get hit, so her premium will go up - makes a small amount of sense i guess, but in the OP's case it wouldnt

[Prawnboy]

no way, someone backed into my wife last year, (scrape to the bumper) got a quote from a dent guy, they paid him direct , he came and fixed it. everybody happy.

[vinnie01]

Spare tyre said:

dazwalsh said:

I wouldn't, you never know what piss boiling excuse they would come up with to hike premiums, despite it not costing them a penny.

they will say he is likely to have accidents because he had one

Its totally bonkers

Its daft if anything a Shunt makes you more careful and more alert

[aka_kerrly]

Isn't the question on most insurance forms have you had any incidents in the past X years, then how many claims and were you at fault or not.

Either way as a anecdotal evidence goes my premium increased by £80 when an uninsured driver crashed into my car and I didn't even claim off my own policy, I merely informed them. The only cost to my insurance company was having someone take a 5minute phone call.

[StottyEvo]

Spare tyre said:

dazwalsh said:

I wouldn't, you never know what piss boiling excuse they would come up with to hike premiums, despite it not costing them a penny.

they will say he is likely to have accidents because he had one

Its totally bonkers


My sisters car got hit when it was a day old when parked on the edge of a road. She had to claim via her insurance etc

she was told she parks it where it is known to get hit, so her premium will go up - makes a small amount of sense i guess, but in the OP's case it wouldnt

My parked car was hit whilst I was at a friends house, by an old women who was blinded by the sun. A month later I was minding my own business at a red light when a taxi drove straight into the back of me. My premium went up from £1,000 to £3,500 purely because of the non-fault accidents.

I did a test, if I had had two at fault accidents each causing 100,000 of damage, or two non-fault accidents where no repairs had to be undertaken, the premium was exactly the same That's with Admiral.

[philoldsmobile]

dazwalsh said:

I wouldn't, you never know what piss boiling excuse they would come up with to hike premiums, despite it not costing them a penny.

I'm not sure they will, I've had two non fault accidents in the last five years, the later one resulting in serious injury. My Ducati 900ss insurance renewal has come in at under £50, and my car was £223 - it's not made the slightest bit of difference.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Spare tyre said:

they will say he is likely to have accidents because he had one

Its totally bonkers




she was told she parks it where it is known to get hit, so her premium will go up - makes a small amount of sense i guess,

It can't be totally bonkers and make a small amount of sense in the same post???? If it's totally bonkers it wouldn't make any sense. If it makes some sense it isn't totally bonkers.

[yzrh]

Intuitively I would have thought that if you suffered an accident through no fault of your own, then you would have a lower chance of it happening again.

Whereas of course if you caused an accident then it's arguable you are more likely to cause one or be involved in one again.

[speedking31]

You drive to work every day down a road with 20 roundabouts whereas I don't. You get rear ended. You think that 1. you are a better risk than me, 2. you are less likely to get rear ended in the future? That's why premiums increase.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

speedking31 said:

You drive to work every day down a road with 20 roundabouts whereas I don't. You get rear ended. You think that 1. you are a better risk than me, 2. you are less likely to get rear ended in the future? That's why premiums increase.

Spot on. You live on a very narrow road and your car gets hit whilst parked. Fortunately, the guilty party leaves a note and their insurers pick up the tab.

My guess is that there's a better than average chance it'll get hit again, and that the next time the guilty party might not be so honest.

[yzrh]

speedking31 said:

You drive to work every day down a road with 20 roundabouts whereas I don't. You get rear ended. You think that 1. you are a better risk than me, 2. you are less likely to get rear ended in the future? That's why premiums increase.

In a policy over one year, say there is a 1% chance you will get hit within the next 12 months, taking into account (as the insurer will) mileage, the area, so on.
The chances of you getting hit once again within the same twelve months all other things equal would be 0.01%.

This is probably a lower chance than for most other people.

e- If through no fault of your own.

Edited by yzrh on Saturday 19th July 14:39

[TwigtheWonderkid]

yzrh said:

speedking31 said:

You drive to work every day down a road with 20 roundabouts whereas I don't. You get rear ended. You think that 1. you are a better risk than me, 2. you are less likely to get rear ended in the future? That's why premiums increase.

In a policy over one year, say there is a 1% chance you will get hit within the next 12 months, taking into account (as the insurer will) mileage, the area, so on).
The chances of you getting hit twice within two months all other things equal would be 0.01%.

This is probably a lower chance than for most other people.

Probability maths fail.

Are you the bloke who tried to smuggle a bomb on to a plane, because you were worried that terrorists might take a bomb on to the plane, but the chances of two bombs being taken on to the same plane were very remote. Therefore, by taking your own and not detonating it, you were enhancing your safety.



Just to clarify, the dice have no memory. The chances of two 6s coming up in consecutive throws are 1 in 36. But having already thrown a 6, the chance of the next throw being a 6 is no less that it being a 5 or a 4.

In matters that aren't random, like murder, or car crashes, the chances of murdering or crashing again are increased, not decreased.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 19th July 14:46

[yzrh]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Probability maths fail.

Are you the bloke who tried to smuggle a bomb on to a plane, because you were worried that terrorists might take a bomb on to the plane, but the chances of two bombs being taken on to the same plane were very remote. Therefore, by taking your own and not detonating it, you were enhancing your safety.



Just to clarify, the dice have no memory. The chances of two 6s coming up in consecutive throws are 1 in 36. But having already thrown a 6, the chance of the next throw being a 6 is no less that it being a 5 or a 4.

In matters that aren't random, like murder, or car crashes, the chances of murdering or crashing again are increased, not decreased.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 19th July 14:46

If there is a plane crash yesterday, the chances are lower the same thing will happen today, therefore I'd feel more comfortable flying over Ukraine today than I would have earlier on in the week.

It has nothing to do with memory. If the chance of something occurring once within a time frame is X, then the chance of it happening again within the same time frame is X^2. All other things equal, i.e. the scenario doesn't change. There's no 'memory' involved in this.

As you picked up on with your dice analogy, the chances of you throwing two sixes is (1/6)^2, i.e. 1/36

[dazwalsh]

^^ all that probability rubbish is exactly that, rubbish.

[yzrh]

dazwalsh said:

^^ all that probability rubbish is exactly that, rubbish.

No it's actually GCSE level maths.

[dazwalsh]

yzrh said:

No it's actually GCSE level maths.

Sorry that wasnt aimed at the post above mine, more the whole "if you have a crash one day your less likely to be involved in another within the same year"