insurance after car accident

stevemarsh1976

sunnygal wrote: »

Insurance does seem so unfair when an accident was not your f ault and you are still hit with additional costs.

My sons friend who is 19 had an accident in his car, the car was written off. As insurance is so high for youngsters he got another car, and got a new insurance quote saying he had not had insurance before therefore the premium was not including the accident he had had.

Now my son has had an accident in his car and his car is a write off (makes you understand why premiums are so high for youngsters doesn't it) anyway he wants to do what his friend did. I am trying to deter him from this action.

Does anyone know is if he did go ahead, is this legal and how would the new insurers ever find out?

Hi Sunny

Insurers share information so in the event of a second accident it would most certainly come to light and the probable outcome would be the insurers refuse to pay the claim out and null and void his insurance. Is it legal well in essence its fraud.

As for the arguement about PNP post well the OP as do many has come on asking for some advice as to why the insurance has risen to be told the insurers are scamming you. Im sorry but for those that work in the industry and frequent these forrums trying to offer free advice this is a moronic statement of the highest order. Maybe Oscar shouldnt come out and call someone a moron but then again without doubt PNP should not be making comemnts on something he/she knows absolutely nothing about, the kind of statement that does nothing for our industries reputation.

Quentin

stevemarsh1976 wrote: »

Maybe Oscar shouldnt come out and call someone a moron

Maybe???

What happened to normal etiquette? (Never mind personal abuse being against the forum rules, if not downright confrontational).

stevemarsh1976

Quentin wrote: »

Maybe???

What happened to normal etiquette? (Never mind personal abuse being against the forum rules, if not downright confrontational).

I think the points been made tho and after reading this thread I was more offended by PNP comment to be honest than I was Oscars

Quentin

stevemarsh1976 wrote: »

after reading this thread I was more offended by PNP comment to be honest than I was Oscars

Oscar used to put this in every post he made here:

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote:

Don't mind me; I'm just some muppet...

.....which just about sums it up!

lisyloo

Insurance does seem so unfair when an accident was not your f ault and you are still hit with additional costs.

Hi sunnygal,

I think it's far from unfair.
If you live/work near accident prone areas or drive at time/places or around people that are accident prone then wy should people who don't subsidise you?
It might not be your fault but your cirumstances mean you are more risky, so you shouldnt' expect to be subsidised by people with less risky circumstances.

If a little old lady drives along country roads when no-one else is about and doesn't part in hazardous supermarket car parks, then why should she subisidise people who drive/park at more hazardous time/places.

This isnt' a moral judgement, it's not about fault.
It's about your circumstances which are relevant to your risk.
Insurers price on risk and if you demonstrate you are a higher risk then you are charged more.
I think that's entirely fair.
What's not fair is expecting to be subsidised by less risky drivers.

Just because it's no fault doesn't mean you aren't a risk.

BTW - most accidents can be avoided by any party.

lisyloo

BTW - I did have a fault accident and was penalised, so I am not speaking only out of self interest.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Quentin wrote: »

What happened to normal etiquette?

And your comment about my previous signature meets these etiquette rules do they? Quentin, you can't come in here and tell everyone how holy you are if you are then going to make crass statements yourself.

I'd like to introduce you to my black kettle.

Quentin

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

Quentin, you can't come in here and tell everyone how holy you are if you are then going to make crass statements yourself.

I'd like to introduce you to my black kettle.

More confrontational bile.

Where have I told everyone how holy I am?

And you wrote this:

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote:

Don't mind me; I'm just some muppet...

You cannot grumble if you get any comments regarding muppetry!

lisyloo

I think it was a fair comment.
We are frequently having people come on here saying "scam, rip off" etc. and they are givig a false impression when they have no idea what they are talking about.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I don't blame the product until I understand a little about it - which actually I try to do up front. Again I'm not an expert but I do put a little effort into understanding contracts I sign. If others did the same then they would not find themselves with one they consederred a scam or rip off because they wouldn't buy it in the first place if they did proper research.
I think it's fair because like others I'm fed up of people claiming that something unsuitable is a scam jsut because they couldn't be bothered to read it or research it first or go to a broker who'd do that for them. I think we should be able to complain about this behaviour.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Quentin wrote: »

More confrontational bile.

Oh dear, Quentin; you are getting really upset about this. As I have always said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. You can consider me a muppet if it makes you feel better, as it's quite clear you have completely missed the reference to my name, avatar and Jim Henson.

It's not your fault - not everyone can have a sense of humour (or proportion). Considering the fact that I haven't used the "muppet" reference for at least 6 months, I do wonder how long you have been holding on to that quote. You're not stalking me are you?