New insurance scam by the insurers

vaio

vaio wrote: »

.......It’s also worth remembering that increased premiums resulting from a no fault claim are a consequential loss and can be recovered from the TP insurance company just like car hires costs etc

DrScotsman wrote: »

Really? That sounds too good to be true. Citation?

Sorry, no citation now all the legal databases are pay to view, just personal experience (see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/32077681#Comment_32077681) plus the common law principle that if you are not at fault then you are entitled to be restored to the position you would have been in had the accident not taken place, thus any additional cost you incur as a result of the accident can be recovered from the other party.

pompeyrich

sw67 wrote: »

Total rubbish - i was hit twice. The first one a guy hit my van trying to park to exchange details with another driver he had just reversed into.

The second one 4 weeks later a guy drove straight into my side as i passed a junction. Both times the insurance did not ask for my excess as the claim was cut and dried

Maybe that just proves the statistic that someone having a no fault accident is more likely to be involved in another.

DrScotsman

vaio wrote: »

Sorry, no citation now all the legal databases are pay to view, just personal experience (see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/32077681#Comment_32077681) plus the common law principle that if you are not at fault then you are entitled to be restored to the position you would have been in had the accident not taken place, thus any additional cost you incur as a result of the accident can be recovered from the other party.

That's a new one to me. "There's precedent, but you can't simply find it on Google".

The damages have to be foreseeable for them to be claimable. Most people don't even seem to know that a non-fault accident increases your premium, so I'm pretty sure they fail the foreseeability test. Good on you for you getting your premium back though.

vaio

DrScotsman wrote: »

………The damages have to be foreseeable for them to be claimable. Most people don't even seem to know that a non-fault accident increases your premium, so I'm pretty sure they fail the foreseeability test. Good on you for you getting your premium back though.

That seems to suggest that whether I get my increased premiums covered depends on whether the dozy driver who hits my parked car foresaw that I could end up with increased premiums if they drive into my parked car.

That can’t be correct, my costs are my costs and are independent of the knowledge/state of mind of the at fault driver.

This applies to all extra costs be they increased premiums, car hire, loss of wages or damage to the expensive equipment that was in the boot and got smashed. If the cost arose because of the accident and I have done my best to mitigate it then it’s recoverable from the negligent driver whether they foresaw it or not.

DrScotsman

vaio wrote: »

That can’t be correct, my costs are my costs and are independent of the knowledge/state of mind of the at fault driver.

Foreseeable means the reasonable man can foresee it (or in this case probably the reasonable driver), not the person who caused the accident. I said that it seems most people don't know non-fault accident increases your premium, hence the reasonable man would not foresee it.

If the cost arose because of the accident and I have done my best to mitigate it then it’s recoverable from the negligent driver whether they foresaw it or not.

"This concept of foreseeability in tort law tends to limit liability to the consequences of an act that could reasonably be foreseen rather than every single consequence that follows. Otherwise, liability could be unlimited in scope, as causes never truly cease having effects far removed in time and space (ex. the Butterfly Effect)."

That was a quote from a US case on Wikipedia, but the same principles apply in the UK, and indeed I've seen this case mentioned in UK lectures to explain the concept of forseeability. I might edit with a nice UK case in the next few minutes though.

EDIT: Ah here we go, The Wagon Mound (No 1)

The Privy Council ... held that to find a party liable for negligence the damage must be reasonably foreseeable. The council found that even though the crew were careless and breached their duty of care , the resulting extensive damage by fire was not foreseeable by a reasonable person, although the minor damage of oil on metal on the slipway would have been foreseeable.

Viscount Simonds presented a unanimous delivery for the Council and said:
"It is, no doubt, proper when considering tortious liability for negligence to analyse its elements and to say that the plaintiff must prove a duty owed to him by the defendant, a breach of that duty by the defendant, and consequent damage. But there can be no liability until the damage has been done. It is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded. ... Who knows or can be assumed to know all the processes of nature? But if it would be wrong that a man should be held liable for damage unpredictable by a reasonable man because it was "direct" or "natural, equally it would be wrong that he should escape liability, however "indirect" the damage, if he foresaw or could reasonably foresee the intervening events which led to its being done."

Note that in this case the "damage" we're talking about is a man's rise in insurance premium, not the damage to his car.