Can you claim back increased Car premiums from 3rdParty fully liable insurer??

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

Talk about selective quoting......

Didn't see the need to repost your post in full - it's above my reply, my reply contains the arrow link to it, and I made no attempt to alter the meaning of your post!

As I said, you were fortunate, but this is not the norm as witness no-one else so far reporting any success.

Maybe it was cheaper for them just to pay you rather than go to the expense of issuing a defence? No-one knows why they paid up, but had you used a solicitor they wouldn't have included it in a court claim as it isn't considered claimable.

But your success does mean its worth trying for (as I said).

vaio

You say “fortunate”, I say “got my consequential costs covered as I am entitled to”, I guess in the absence of any logical/legal argument why that shouldn’t be the case we’ll have to agree to differ.

As for the solicitor, if I’m paying his fees he will include any costs for which a logical legal argument can be made in any claim I make. It is then for opposition to make a counter argument and a judge will decide.

As the best you & direct line can come up with is variations on “we don’t pay those” or “it isn’t considered claimable” I wouldn’t have thought it would take a judge too long to come to a decision.

All the tort boxes are ticked, duty of care, breach of that duty, causation & foreseeability. Frankly it’s a no brainer.

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

Frankly it’s a no brainer.

Were that so, an enterprising No Win No Fee claim handler would somehow have managed to get on MSE whenever this topic comes up to spam us with a "firm who can win this back" he knows of.

But as already posted, you are the only one fortunate to have got this back!

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

Were that so, an enterprising No Win No Fee claim handler would somehow have managed to get on MSE whenever this topic comes up to spam us with a "firm who can win this back" he knows of........

Frankly there is so much money to be made in PI & credit hire claims that I can’t see any self respecting ambulance chaser getting out of bed to recover what a likely to be a claim worth maybe £200.

Quentin wrote: »

......But as already posted, you are the only one fortunate to have got this back!

Maybe that’s because authoritative sounding people keep uncritically trotting out the insurance/financial industry party line “we don’t pay those”, despite no one advancing any sort of logical/legal argument why such claims should be denied.

Still, I’m sure they & you are right, after all this is the industry that told teachers it was a good idea to move their pensions out of the LA final salary scheme, told us endowments would clear our mortgages & give us a nice pile of cash, told us PPI was a good idea and collectively seems to have brought the world economy to its knees.

Who would I trust? Insurance company party line or long established English law of torts?

As I said above, it’s a no brainer

chanz4

also how do you prove future increases? you cant

Dynamic_Panda

Vaio.............you cannot claim for something that has not happened at the time of the accident...........increases in premium are likely whether you are at fault for an accident or not and you can only claim for uninsured losses that occur AT the time it happens.............end of.........

DP

vaio

Dynamic_Panda wrote: »

Vaio.............you cannot claim for something that has not happened at the time of the accident...........increases in premium are likely whether you are at fault for an accident or not and you can only claim for uninsured losses that occur AT the time it happens.............end of.........

DP

right, so by your logic you also can't claim for medical expenses, future care needs or loss of earnings which occur (or only become apparent) after the accident?

vaio

chanz4 wrote: »

also how do you prove future increases? you cant

Tricky one.......just a wild stab in the dark and feel free to shoot me down but how about either waiting to find out what the future increases are or even make a reasonable guess?

Basically use the same methods as are currently used for claiming other uninsured losses like ongoing care costs or future loss of earnings

Dynamic_Panda

I did not say that at all...............all things like loss of earnings and that are a foregone conclusion............what I am saying is that increases in premiums happen regardless of who is at fault therefore cannot be claimed back.............

By your logic you are trying to claim for something that may or may not happen............hmmmmm seems I must have wasted 5 years in motor claims as a complaints specialist then..............

DP

vaio

think you might have missed the point of the thread, it's about premium increases which are due entirely to having a non fault accident.

you hit me when I'm parked, 100% your fault, you pay for the damage to my car. My insurance company increase my premium because I've been hit by you.

The question is why should those premium increases be treated any differently to say the cost of hiring replacement car whilst mine is being repaired given that the law of torts (and the general principle of non fault accidents insurance) is that I should be put back in the position I would have been in had the accident not happened?