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

Dynamic_Panda

See my first reply at the top of the thread as it makes it very clear what the situation is...............so no I did not miss the point of the thread...........

DP

scooby75

Please put an end to this silly debate. An increase in insurance premium is a direct consequence of an insurer's decision as to what the premium should be. It is not a loss caused by someone smacking into your car. Please read up on "proximate cause" and that will explain it.

chanz4

vaio wrote: »

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

scan a copy of your court award notice, blank the personal details out as dont think people believe you

vaio

Mine didn't get to court, the opposition kept repeating "we don't pay that" or variations right up until the point the court papers landed at which point they paid up in full

vaio

scooby75 wrote: »

Please put an end to this silly debate. An increase in insurance premium is a direct consequence of an insurer's decision as to what the premium should be. It is not a loss caused by someone smacking into your car. Please read up on "proximate cause" and that will explain it.

Nice to see other joining in with their views. In my case I had a letter from my insurance company confirming the increase due solely to the non fault incident and in the OP's case he has identical quotes apart from declaring the non fault so we can both clearly demonstrate the no fault loading and I don't see any problem proving causation.

System

scooby75 wrote: »

Please put an end to this silly debate. An increase in insurance premium is a direct consequence of an insurer's decision as to what the premium should be. It is not a loss caused by someone smacking into your car. Please read up on "proximate cause" and that will explain it.

If you think it is a silly debate, you do not have to read it do you ?

If anyone thinks that an increase in your premium after a No-Fault claim should not be classed as a "loss" then that person must be seriously daft. The Third Party should be totally liable for any subsequent loss that the First Party suffers through no fault of their own. I do not care if the so called insurance experts, or the insurance industry consider it not to be a consequential loss or "proximate cause", the morally correct thing to do would be not to increase a premium as a result of a No-Fault Claim, but failing that, the Third Party should pay compensation towards the extra premium charges.
The Motor Insurance Industry should be able to calculate and agree a schedule of the level of compensation suitable for No-Fault Claims, it aint rocket science.

scooby75

Google "Girl Killed by branch" and "Teachers strike". You will see a number of results which link the girl being killed to the teachers strike.

Last time I checked, teachers on strike did not call branches to fall off trees and kill people. the cause in his case is down to rot/weak branch/storm - whatever it was. It was not due to teachers striking. It is not inherent that a teacher on strike will cause a branches to fall off trees.

Similarly, in hot sunny weather, the sale of ice cream and sunglasses increases. There is no correlation between the two - one does not cause the other.

Sorry if I seem to be over emphasising this point, but it is essential it is grasped.

In a similar vein, a car that hits another car does not cause your premium to increase. An impact does not change the figures written down to calculate your premium. It does not alter the direct debit that comes out of the bank. It is the underwriter deciding, given all the circumstances, what premium to charge that causes the increase in your premiums. The fact that you have had an accident may influence the decision that the underwriter makes, but it does not cause it.

System

You are just being really picky with words in an attempt to justify your point, and your examples are spurious.

If the No-Fault Claim had not been necessary, the premium would not have increased (Based on the Insurers Decision) so the Third party is the obvious source of the additional cost and hence should pay compensation.

scooby75

BAA1 wrote: »

I do not care if the so called insurance experts, or the insurance industry consider it not to be a consequential loss or "proximate cause", the morally correct thing to do would be not to increase a premium as a result of a No-Fault Claim, but failing that, the Third Party should pay compensation towards the extra premium charges.

It's very easy to disregard what does happen to make it fit with your own point of view. You say you don't care about "proximate cause" (it is a real term and so does not require quotation marks), however the courts do as it is a basic principle. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

With regards to law and morality, yes it would be nice if the two are the same, but they are not. And who's morals should we follow in any case (that's rhetorical and would take the thread off topic so if anyone wants to debate that issue I'd suggest another thread is started to help anyone concerned with the subject matter in hand).

System

The quotation marks were to identify that it was your term not mine, so quit with the attempted superior attitude

If you read my earlier post(s) you will see that I am debating / campaining for the insurance industry process to be changed so that No-Fault claims do not detrimentally impact on the innocent party.

Just because something exists today, does not mean that it will continue forever, but it will if the insurance industry are allowed to get away with it unchallenged.