Insurance Question

[Pot Bellied Fool]

Hi all

Just some idle musings & wonderings following an incident around this time last year.

My parked V70 was hit by a delivery flatbed and written off. I'm still a little peeved because of the loss of my NCB.

Long story short...

A local builder was doing an extension on a nearby house. He had a subbie bricky/tiler/flagger working on site. The subbie had a delivery of aggregates and it was that driver that hit my car.

No-one caught it on doorbell cams unfortunately. When challenged, the subbie said the guy had knocked on a few doors (oh yeah?) and he'd get him to get in touch. Needless to say he didn't.

Insurance wrote the V70 off as it needed a new quarter panel & associated spraying etc. Shame. They paid out with no hassle but of course I'm down my NCB and all that entails come renewals.

So I was just wondering... in this sort of situation, does the builder carry any liability through his business insurance?

I'm just a bit miffed by it all but guess need to just let it go and chalk it down to experience.

In the interim, I had a heart attack so I'm not going to get into a shouting match with the builder but would pass his details onto the insurance co to pursue if there was a chance of getting my NCB back...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pot Bellied Fool said:

So I was just wondering... in this sort of situation, does the builder carry any liability through his business insurance?

No.

He doesn't have any liability because he wasn't negligent. What do he do wrong? Even if he was, his business insurance wouldn't cover it as it excludes all claims relating to the use of a motor vehicle, because that's what motor insurance covers.

The driver of the vehicle that hit your vehicle was negligent, and that's who you need to claim against.

[Pit Pony]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pot Bellied Fool said:

So I was just wondering... in this sort of situation, does the builder carry any liability through his business insurance?

No.

He doesn't have any liability because he wasn't negligent. What do he do wrong? Even if he was, his business insurance wouldn't cover it as it excludes all claims relating to the use of a motor vehicle, because that's what motor insurance covers.

The driver of the vehicle that hit your vehicle was negligent, and that's who you need to claim against.

I would suggest that it is a police matter. Leaving the scene without leaving details. A simple note on the car they'd damaged... The OPs post suggests that with a little investigation the culprit could be found

[Aretnap]

Pit Pony said:

I would suggest that it is a police matter. Leaving the scene without leaving details. A simple note on the car they'd damaged... The OPs post suggests that with a little investigation the culprit could be found

A common misconception. Leaving the scene without leaving details is fine if the vehicles owner is not around to give them to. In that situation what the driver has to do is report the accident to the police. If he doesn't, that's when it becomes an offence.

For all we know he did report it - so if the OP hasn't done so already he should contact the police and see if they have the driver's details. If not he can report it as a hit and run.

Leaving a note under a windscreen wiper as well as reporting it is arguably good manners, but it might blow away or get rained on, so the law doesn't regard it as either necessary or sufficient to meet your obligations in this situation.

Edited by Aretnap on Sunday 30th November 14:22

[kestral]

Aretnap said:

A common misconception. Leaving the scene without leaving details is fine if the vehicles owner is not around to give them to. In that situation what the driver has to do is report the accident to the police. If he doesn't, that's when it becomes an offence.

For all we know he did report it - so if the OP hasn't done so already he should contact the police and see if they have the driver's details. If not he can report it as a hit and run.

Leaving a note older a windscreen wiper as well as reporting it is arguably good manners, but it might blow away or get rained on, so the law doesn't regard it as either necessary or sufficient to meet your obligations in this situation.

24hrs

[Aretnap]

kestral said:

24hrs

If you want to be pedantic, it's as soon as reasonably practical, and in any case within 24 hours.

[surveyor]

I've always found it odd that it is quite common to be penalised for making a claim, but yet it seems there is no possibility of including an average cost as an irrecoverable loss in the claim.

I guess you would need to work out on average what the cost would have been had there not been a claim, and what it would be if you had made a claim over a wide sample. Average punter would find it quite hard to do. Your average insurance company would have the data at it's fingertips.

It's almost like the system is rigged...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

surveyor said:

I've always found it odd that it is quite common to be penalised for making a claim, but yet it seems there is no possibility of including an average cost as an irrecoverable loss in the claim.

I guess you would need to work out on average what the cost would have been had there not been a claim, and what it would be if you had made a claim over a wide sample. Average punter would find it quite hard to do. Your average insurance company would have the data at it's fingertips.

It's almost like the system is rigged...

It's almost like you don't understand risk assessment, and that you cannot hold a tp responsible for something that isn't their responsibility, just because your lack of understanding means you mistakenly think it is their responsibility.

[GasEngineer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

surveyor said:

I've always found it odd that it is quite common to be penalised for making a claim, but yet it seems there is no possibility of including an average cost as an irrecoverable loss in the claim.

I guess you would need to work out on average what the cost would have been had there not been a claim, and what it would be if you had made a claim over a wide sample. Average punter would find it quite hard to do. Your average insurance company would have the data at it's fingertips.

It's almost like the system is rigged...

It's almost like you don't understand risk assessment, and that you cannot hold a tp responsible for something that isn't their responsibility, just because your lack of understanding means you mistakenly think it is their responsibility.

I don't get it either and I did ask about claiming once. If your ongoing costs are higher solely as a result of the TP's negligence why can't your loss be claimed from the TP?

[Foss62]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

surveyor said:

I've always found it odd that it is quite common to be penalised for making a claim, but yet it seems there is no possibility of including an average cost as an irrecoverable loss in the claim.

I guess you would need to work out on average what the cost would have been had there not been a claim, and what it would be if you had made a claim over a wide sample. Average punter would find it quite hard to do. Your average insurance company would have the data at it's fingertips.

It's almost like the system is rigged...

It's almost like you don't understand risk assessment, and that you cannot hold a tp responsible for something that isn't their responsibility, just because your lack of understanding means you mistakenly think it is their responsibility.

Surely it's more about necessary and sensible limitation to the scope of insurance? A TP might well be responsible for a rise in future insurance costs, but equally there could be massive consequences from any minor insurance event:

'I had the thousand pounds in my pocket and was just about to put it on the 100-1 winner of the 3:30 when the TP clipped my mirror outside the bookies at 3:20'.

[Durzel]

I'm a bit confused as to why you would necessarily have lost your NCB?

Did you not find the insurer for the subbie that hit the car, or did they deny responsibility? Only reason to be claiming off your own insurance as an "at fault" claim if there was no one else to go after, but you seem to know who did it, or at least know the person (builder) who knows the person?

[Pit Pony]

Aretnap said:

Pit Pony said:

I would suggest that it is a police matter. Leaving the scene without leaving details. A simple note on the car they'd damaged... The OPs post suggests that with a little investigation the culprit could be found

A common misconception. Leaving the scene without leaving details is fine if the vehicles owner is not around to give them to. In that situation what the driver has to do is report the accident to the police. If he doesn't, that's when it becomes an offence.

For all we know he did report it - so if the OP hasn't done so already he should contact the police and see if they have the driver's details. If not he can report it as a hit and run.

Leaving a note under a windscreen wiper as well as reporting it is arguably good manners, but it might blow away or get rained on, so the law doesn't regard it as either necessary or sufficient to meet your obligations in this situation.

Edited by Aretnap on Sunday 30th November 14:22

Good response.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

GasEngineer said:

If your ongoing costs are higher solely as a result of the TP's negligence why can't your loss be claimed from the TP?

Your ongoing costs aren't higher because of the tp's negligence, they are higher because your insurer has decided having a non fault claim puts you into a higher rated insurance category. And in a percentage of cases they will be right. Lots of insurers do not charge for a non fault accident because their stats don't show you are a higher risk going forward, or if you are, not high enough to be a factor worth charging for.

[Pot Bellied Fool]

Durzel said:

I'm a bit confused as to why you would necessarily have lost your NCB?

Did you not find the insurer for the subbie that hit the car, or did they deny responsibility? Only reason to be claiming off your own insurance as an "at fault" claim if there was no one else to go after, but you seem to know who did it, or at least know the person (builder) who knows the person?

No, no-one was willing to tell me who the subbie is although they said they'd pass my details on (yeah).

...and what's the betting that he'd now just hold hbis hands up and shrug. I asked around at the time but no-one had doorbell footage and although someone saw it happen, they didn't get the reg.

[GasEngineer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

GasEngineer said:

If your ongoing costs are higher solely as a result of the TP's negligence why can't your loss be claimed from the TP?

Your ongoing costs aren't higher because of the tp's negligence, they are higher because your insurer has decided having a non fault claim puts you into a higher rated insurance category. And in a percentage of cases they will be right. Lots of insurers do not charge for a non fault accident because their stats don't show you are a higher risk going forward, or if you are, not high enough to be a factor worth charging for.

OTOH if the TP had never crashed into you then you wouldn't have a no fault claim for a future insurer to consider.
Let's say that your premium does increase for arguments sake - the increased cost is a consequence of the TP's negligence.

[Pot Bellied Fool]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No.

He doesn't have any liability because he wasn't negligent. What do he do wrong? Even if he was, his business insurance wouldn't cover it as it excludes all claims relating to the use of a motor vehicle, because that's what motor insurance covers.

The driver of the vehicle that hit your vehicle was negligent, and that's who you need to claim against.

Thanks Twig, yes that makes sense. I knew I was clutching at straws a bit but hey ho. I guess I was idly thinking because it was the fault of someone under his sorta control. But no...

Shame the online insurance quote boxes don't really cover the "not my fault but unknown TP" scenario.

It wasn't long after that I had a heart attack so my attention was elsewhere to chase it when memories were still fresh but at least I'm still here to be miffed about it - I'll take that as a win.

[BertBert]

Pot Bellied Fool said:

Shame the online insurance quote boxes don't really cover the "not my fault but unknown TP" scenario.

That's because it's not a scenario. If the TP is not known then it counts the same as a fault claim as your insurance have paid out and not recovered anything.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

GasEngineer said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

GasEngineer said:

If your ongoing costs are higher solely as a result of the TP's negligence why can't your loss be claimed from the TP?

Your ongoing costs aren't higher because of the tp's negligence, they are higher because your insurer has decided having a non fault claim puts you into a higher rated insurance category. And in a percentage of cases they will be right. Lots of insurers do not charge for a non fault accident because their stats don't show you are a higher risk going forward, or if you are, not high enough to be a factor worth charging for.

OTOH if the TP had never crashed into you then you wouldn't have a no fault claim for a future insurer to consider.
Let's say that your premium does increase for arguments sake - the increased cost is a consequence of the TP's negligence.

If the tp hadn't crashed into you, you wouldn't have missed your first class flight to NZ, but that's not down to them either. Or you wouldn't have missed the deadline for buying a Euromillions ticket, and your numbers you do every time, came up.

Not every loss you incur as a result of of a non fault accident is the responsibility of the person who hit you, even though it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't hit you.