|
I am trying to contact "jblf", who posted on this forum in 2009 that he had recovered his premium increase following a non-fault accident from the third party. My daughter has recently encountered exactly the same situation and I urgently need to find out how "jblf" achieved his outcome, as I have spoken to both my daughter's insurer (Admiral) and the solicitors dealing with her injury claim, and both are pretty clueless and of little help.
Thanks, Peter.
|
|
From experince Admiral are fairly clueless and work on the tick box principle.
I had someone hit ,me whilst i was parked ! but it still increased my premium ! ouch.
Thats why i use an incar camera to make who fault it is very clear from the start.
www.roadhawk.co.uk
|
|
Most insurers put your premium up in the event of a No Fault accident. The rationale is that those who are involved in an accident-even if they weren't liable-are statistically more likely to be involved in another one.
|
Sounds like clap trap from the insurance company. I was told exactly this a few months previous by admiral when someone rear ended me at a roundabout. I took my business elsewhere out of principle. This did bring my premium back down to the pre accident level but I suspect that was as I benefited from a new customer incentive. It s worth shopping round come renewal time. Often it is cheaper to take out a new policy with your existing insurer than it is to renew the existing one.
Incidentally I don't feel like I am statistically more likely to have another accident since some one went in the back of me....
I do however feel a shred of sympathy for the insurance companies having to pay out millions for whiplash claims. An accident management company was straight on to me post accident to try and get me to claim... Seeing as I was hit at about 2 mph they were given their marching orders.
|
Incidentally I don't feel like I am statistically more likely to have another accident since some one went in the back of me....
Well it might be indicative of someone who brakes very suddenly and sharply because they're aggresive and leave little margin for error or doesn't read the road ahead.
Insurance algorihmns are compiled from milions of data points-nothing personal!
As an aside, I think a lot of roundabout ditherers are authors of their own misfortune and deserve to have their NCB docked. I've not gone into the back of one yet, but when you approach a roundabout, look right and see it's all clear and the car in front tentatively inches forward then stops for no reason...Arrgh!
A lot of accidents could be avoided if the "no fault" driver took preventative action.
|
|
|
|
Thats why i use an incar camera to make who fault it is very clear from the start.
I was with a so called "premium insurer" who still have not settled my claim 15 months on, I was not at fault,They sent out an investigator who said i was not at fault, They have not heard from the 3rd party involved since the claim was rejected, Still got the claim on hold, as the other party have allegedly got 3 years to pursue their claim. I did not claim for the deep scratch as a chipsaway/scratch repair mate did it for the cost of the paint for me.
My premium more than doubled, but as I was almost at the end of my contract got a quote that was only the cost of inflation difference, (declaring it as an at fault as it should be till settled) and wiped the smile off their faces when I told them that if it went to court they were "ON THEIR OWN". They were outraged! The only consolation was that the other party also saw his premiums rise. I have since renewed with another company and seen my premuim reduced again. It is worth keeping copies of letters, ncd discount letters and correspondance , especially with the accident investigators, as i found it helped.
|
You make some good points unthrottled, and yes roundabout ditherers are up there with the worst.
In some cases such as late brokers or roundabout ditherers I can accept the likelihood of accidents increases. I guess the problem lies with the one size fits all policy of calculating premiums.
|
|
........and when the new EU legislation comes in on Dec 21st I reckon a lot of people are going to see a hike even when they have never claimed - insurance companies will have an excuse then 'oh well men's and women's must be the same'.
|
........and when the new EU legislation comes in on Dec 21st I reckon a lot of people are going to see a hike even when they have never claimed - insurance companies will have an excuse then 'oh well men's and women's must be the same'.
Well, men's premiums won't go down because of the ruling will they ?
|
Well, men's premiums won't go down because of the ruling will they ?
Don't be silly. Premiums are the only known entity that defy gravity.
Edited by unthrottled on 13/06/2012 at 19:05
|
|
|
|
|
Quite so. There's always an element of unfairness in insurance premiums. But at least we'll never have to go through the biggest indiscriminate killer again: gender of young drivers. Not all young men are boy racers. Not all girls are good drivers. But the assumption makes the difference between a £2000 premium and a £4000 premium!
Looking back at my peer group, I think the proportion of male and female drivers that crashed was roughly similar. Perhaps surprisingly, very few had accidents in their first year.
Car insurance is turning out to be a an area of abject market failure. The actual amount spent fixing broken cars is only about 1/4 of each claim-which is ridiculous.
I think it would be better if liability was sorted out between the two parties face to face-and only go to arbitration if an agreement couldn't be made. It would be much harder to deny liability or claim whiplash when you actually have to look at the person in the eye and not just talk to a rep from an accident management company over the phone.
|
Although I didn't join I went to a couple of IAM sessions as a guest and remember that one of their messages was that they claim to teach drivers "to avoid other peoples accidents".
I know what they mean and thought that was quite a good message.
|
|
I somehow doubt that insurance companies analyse accidents in any meaningful way. Millions of date points means nothing without interpretation. Vide the cash for crash events. The insurers data didn't throw this up: MK 1 eyeball did. More likely: they see an event such as a no fault accident as an extra profit opportunity. One aspect that might be considered is claiming the cost of increased premiums (unsustainable statistically in many cases!) against the other party under "uninsured losses". Some legal cover might be available. I've done so successfully on one occasion.
Edited by nortones2 on 13/06/2012 at 22:23
|
I somehow doubt that insurance companies analyse accidents in any meaningful way.
I disagree. They'll be legions of analysts scouring the data looking for correlations, looking for a competitive edge. Of course, correlation doesn't always mean causality. Does driving a fast car make you more likely to have an accident, or is it simply the case that people who are likely to have an accident gravitate towards fast cars? Probably the same applies to driving (slightly) over the limit...
|
|
I think I put my argument rather poorly. Yes, there are broad trends. Youth, inexperience, extreme old age, criminal record, high-powered vehicles etc all play a part. I don't think the analyis of accidents is more than a broad-brush approach, except for high-cost claims. But non fault accidents are probably more random than predictable. At the lower end of the scale, if someone runs into my car, whilst it's parked legally and sensibly, does it make it more likely that such an incident would recur in future? No, I don't think so, but it might suit some insurers to assert it would.
|
if someone runs into my car, whilst it's parked legally and sensibly, does it make it more likely that such an incident would recur in future? No, I don't think so, but it might suit some insurers to assert it would.early that driver is responsible
I agree with you. But a lot of no fault claims are less clear cut. A common incident is a right of way violation whereby a driver pulls out from a side road and cuts up oncoming traffic. Clearly, that driver is at fault-but an accident can often be avoided if the driver on the main road brakes sharply.
The fact is that a lot of drivers go decades without a collision whilst others have a lot of 'bad luck'. Yes, fortune plays a part, but, as with money, you can make your own luck!
|
|
Could anyone help with my original query? The premium rise is likely to cost my daughter around £1000 over the five years insurers will hold this against her. Could an administrator of this forum attempt to contact the person who made the post in 2009 to which I have referred and either ask them to post the details I need, or contact me directly.
Thank you.
|
|
Defensive driving is a mystery to most! Luckily I've had some extra tuition (skid pan, advanced driver input) and I think that helps. But, as you say, there are many grey areas re liability.
|
|
|
|
Actually your experiences are pretty much correct. Young men and young women are within spit statistically on accident rates.
The big difference, which accounts for the discrepancy in premiums, is that your young lady will bash a wing or rearend someone at the lights. Your young man will often elect to wrap his Eurobox around a tree at 70 mph while s***faced, killing or seriously injuring himself and the four mates he has with him at the time.
Death and injury claims make damage claims look trivial by comparison and if you substitute "oncoming vehicle" for "tree" it gets really nasty.
That's what an actuary in the business told me anyway.
Go and have a quick search on the newspaper archives for stories of the "n teenagers killed in horrific crash" type. Note the number of female drivers involved......it seems to hold true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happened to me. The insurance lot were not able to get the ones who hit us to admit liability for a long while. The premium went up but when the liability was admitted I got a refund, six months, dealing with insusance companies to me is like trying to pick eels up with your toes.
|
|
|
