I had a bump three months back:
I was doing a three point turn in a quiet and completely empty road and just as I was completing my manouver (which I rather vexingly find I cannot spell!!) - my hand had gone to the gear stick to change back into 1st - somebody came up behind me and drove into me. My insurers have decreed that it is absolutely my fault because I had been manouvering. I think this is a bit unfair because turning in the road is not illegal and I had taken precautions (checked there was nobody coming and was watching all round (although cannot watch front and back simultaneously!) before starting my manover. He came along and drove into me! I think we was probably keeping an eye on the traffic lights which were somewhat beyond where I was turning.
My insurers maintain that he was driving along normally and had the right to assume that nobody would be in front of him turning (and thus presumably the right to drive into anybody he found doing so!).
I assumed this would be 50/50 as there were no witnesses. There was no damage to my car (ZX) whatsoever, not even a scratch, but the front bumper of his Alpha was cracked. This happened in November, as despite me providing details at the time, his insurers have only contacted mine last Friday, which I think is a bit stange.
Can anybody think of something to say to persuade my insurers that I should not have to cough up? I have protected no claims so all is not gloom and doom, but I think it's a tad unfair and will cost my my excess.
All my mates advised me to lie blatently on the insurance form and claim that I was sitting at the lights when he drove into the back of me as I was staionary. I decided not to so so - some kind of doing the right thing/kharma/paranoia thing - but now they are all saying 'told you so, neh neh neh).
Rather interestingly, a youth of my acquaintance was recently involved in a crash on a traffic light controlled roundabout. He was on the r'bout and passed some lights at green, somebody joining the roundabout also claims she passed the lights at green and as a result he drove into the side of her car and both were written off. In his case of claim and counter claim, that has gone to a 50/50 insurers decision. My insurers say that both were driving along normally therefore blame cannot be apportioned. I think if this is true, then they are saying that if you turn, manouver or even break then it must be YOUR fault if an accident occurs, even if there is no other evidence to go on, as you were doing something that the other driver could not predict.
I would be interested to hear anybody's opinions, even if they are to say 'quite right' because then at least I can feel satisfied with the insurance company's handling of my claim.
|
Someone else can answer your insurance questions. I understood that you shouldn't lose your excess because you aren't making a claim for your car.
|
|
But he's claiming for damage to all that top quality italian plastic. Excess is the first X amount of any claim. Boo hoo!
|
FFX - he should recover his excess from your insurance as an uninsured loss. Your excess only applies to anything YOU claim.
...and fight it anyway. You could be parked sideways on the M6 and it would be up to others to avoid you (well, not quite, but you see what I mean!).
Terry
|
This seems very odd.... Insurance companies normally make every effort not to pay out.
I would take it up with them along the lines of "If he had run into a parked car, would it be the car owner's fault?" - clearly at worst it is 50/50, but if you were there first and he just ran into you (presuming you weren't performing the manoeuvre the wrong side of a blind bend of hump backed bridge) then I can't see how this is anyhting other than his fault.
Fight it!!
Richard
|
|
|
Basically Terry said it except that I don\'t fancy your chances of success.
You were not driving normally you were manoeuvring (I can spell it !) and therefore under normal circumstances the responsiblity for safe execution of that manoeuvre is yours. The onus would be upon you to show that it was not normal - excessive speed, drunkeness, blindfold, whatever - your chances are not good and you would never get to 100% not your fault.
On this 50/50 thing; be clear, there are only two states which are of any relevance to you;
1) 100% not your fault
2) more than 1% your fault
As soon as even 1% of the accident is your fault, then it has gone against your record, you will not retrieve your uninsured losses and your NCB will be hit.
50:50 is meaningless to you or anyone else.
All in all, your insurance company is taking the correct action (especially given your chances of proving that the circumstances were different from what might be viewed as the \"default\" view). The other guy\'s excess comes off your insurance, not out of your pocket.
|
The action of the Insurers is driven by two things;
1) they don't care, since they won't be paying anything to anyone other than uninsured losses.
2) even if they chose to fight it, they would have to produce proof showing that the normal "default" view was inappropriate and that would entail proving speed, drunkeness, recklessness or something similar.
don't forget, under the agreements insurance companies have they all pay for their own vehicle related accident damage assuming both parties have AD. Only non-motoring related damage, injury and uninsured losses are considered by the third party insurers.
|
Thanks Mark. Okay, so to be pragmatic, unless if I can prove I was 100% in the right, which I cannot, the insurers are taking the best course of action to resolve the issue. If I don't even have to cough up £100, which is my excess, then I may as well just grin and bear it. I have protected no claims anyhow, so it should not affect my premium. It just means that I am probably effectively tied in to my insurers for a while, because I would have to declare this accident on obtaining a new quote. Am I right? Have I understood protected no claims properly?
Narked at blemish to my otherwise spotless driving career... okay *insurance career*, as the previous accident I was involved in, the other driver (at fault) offered me wads of cash not to put it through the insurance.
Ho hum! Happy Birthday to me!... it's been fun so far today :-(
|
I have just re-read this bit...
>don't forget, under the agreements insurance companies have they all pay for their own vehicle related accident damage assuming both parties have AD. Only non-motoring related damage, injury and uninsured losses are considered by the third party insurers.
Is this true? Is this a vehicle (no pun intended) to insure that people don't make wild and spurious claims to repair their cars. If my car was safely parked and somebody last control of their car due to being drunk and their car damamged mine (trying to think of least fault scenario that I can) does this mean that *my* insurers would pay for the damage to my car? Do they not then claim it back from the third parties insurers?
What exactly is an uninsured loss? I should have claimed against the guy for my broken fingernail! Don't laugh! Because my hand was on the gearstick, I ripped my left index fingernail out as I reflex grabbed the gearstick on impact. Lots of blood and pain! It affected my computer mousing for a couple of weeks!
Does anybody know of a car insurance for dummies site I can read? I am off to HJ's FAQ and will do a search to see what I can find out. I find this whole thing very confusing.
|
FFX-DM,
Using the backroom search, search on my name and...
1) Knock for Knock
2) Uninsured loss
3) Insurance
4) Claims
You should find more than enough reading material to keep you going for quite some time.
|
|
|
|
>>Am I right? Have I understood protected no claims properly?
You have understood it exactly. The only thing that I could add is that most protected NCD schemes have a limit to the number of accidents in a particular time-frame - could be two in three years for example.
Now whilst this means that you will lose not lose the bonus, you may still receive a premium loading for the second accident, although not normally for the first.
|
That's a good point that hadn't occurred to me before, Mark.
Is it probable that whilst you may well have your NCD protected, in the event of an accident (or two!) your basic premium will be raised to the point where you end up effectively paying what you would have paid with some loss of NCD?
|
Frostbite -
Yes.
This is the reason I say until I am blue in the face, it doesn\'t matter a #$% what your bonus is, what discounts you get or anything else - only the bottom line matters.
I would rather get a 10% discount off a $50 premium then get 50% off a $500 premium.
The value in \"protected NCD\" is not, in fact, that it is protected. It is not. Not even a little bit.
Assume you have a 60% NCD (4 years), a protected bonus policy and an accident. If you try to go anywhere else within 2 years you will find that the proof of NCD the company will give you has been reduced.
The real advantage is that you get one claim with no increase in premium above their market rate provided you stay with the same company.
They specifically do this because they are looking for lower risk policy holders. You get the protected bonus if that applies to you. If you do have a single accident, firstly it might just be a one-off and secondly you are now tied to them for a further two years so that they can get some of the money back.
It is fair to say that for the second accident the premium loading is not always equivalent to the bonus you would have lost (if you see what I mean) but it frequently is. And if you have a second accident you are then tied to them for 4 years until you have all your NCD back which means that they load your premium with the expectation of you remaining for at least three more years.
Mean, isn\'t it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![2021 Fiat 500 1.0 Mild Hybrid Dolcevita [Part Leather] 3dr](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/70a4d26a72dcaed00b62555f04329b1a/8455ab8c962ca70bf386a28fab4625b0.jpg)
