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

scooby75

BAA1 wrote: »

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.

By that reckoning, I've just missed my train because I was replying to your post. I can't get a refund. If I were not replying to this forum, I would not have missed my train. Therefore someone on here owes me my train fare. Or maybe if I had not got out of bed so early, I wouldn't have had time to turn my computer on, would not have replied and would have left. Or maybe that phone call I had last night kept me up later than I wanted and I was too tired to get up in time. If BT had not fitted the phone line, I would not have received that call.

How silly should this go before the point is taken?

System

No point discussing it any further with you since your views are obviously at a complete tangent to mine. (Strange comparison examples you dream up) :rotfl:

scooby75

BAA1 wrote: »

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.

But you are not debating it, you are merely putting across your point of view without backing up what you are saying. You clearly think that insurers should not be allowed to put up premiums following a no fault claim. Fair enough. Saying "I don't care what the law" is not exactly a debate.

And when you say insurers are "Getting away with it", you are implying that they are doing something wrong. An insurer can provide a good reason why they charge more after a no fault accident - it is that you are more likely to make a claim in future and therefore represent an increased risk to them. That is a sound viewpoint - a disagreeable one maybe but at least it has been justified.

System

Please look up the definition of the word "debate"

Just because you disagree with my viewpoint does not make your's correct.

I have said what I think, with suitable points of argument along with each point, if that is not backing it up then I don't know what is.

You may have justified your own viewpoint in your own mind, but certainly not justified to me or I hope to the majority of people.

But...enough said...

vaio

scooby75 wrote: »

........when you say insurers are "Getting away with it", you are implying that they are doing something wrong. An insurer can provide a good reason why they charge more after a no fault accident - it is that you are more likely to make a claim in future and therefore represent an increased risk to them. That is a sound viewpoint - a disagreeable one maybe but at least it has been justified.

Whether insurance companies should be allowed to increase premiums because of a non fault I don’t think is the issue, it’s certainly not the position I am commenting on, I feel the insurance companies should be free to arrive at my premium in any way they choose just as I am free to accept it or take my business elsewhere.

The point I’m making is IF an insurance company (and an increasing number seem to be doing so) decides to increase my premium because of a non fault accident then, subject to the need to mitigate & document, the increased premium that can be proved to be due to the non fault is reclaimable from the at fault party just like any other consequential cost.

The causation issue is clear in my mind, the main test is the “but for” test where the question asked is “but for the negligent act would I have suffered the increased premium/injury/damaged car/lost wages or job/imprisonment etc etc?”

If the answer is no then compensation can be claimed from the at fault party.

System

But where is the line drawn? Do you still claim off the third party 3 years later because your premiums are still higher due to the claim?

vaio

Yep, just as you still claim off the third party if you need 24hr nursing care for the rest of your life because of a brain injury sustained in the accident

System

vaio wrote: »

Yep, just as you still claim off the third party if you need 24hr nursing care for the rest of your life because of a brain injury sustained in the accident

That is slightly different. That is normally a lump sum paid at the beginning based on the condition and prognosis. It is then a F&F settlement. You would not be able to go back 2 years later and claim that the cost of 24 hr care has risen 25% rather than the 10% calculated in the settlement.

Insurance premiums have got so many variables that it can not be done that way. I would think that any insurance company worth its salt would insist on a F&F settlement at the time of first settlement

vaio

Fair point, so go back to my post #19 and use those methods

vaio wrote: »

............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

In my case I waited until the costs were known but there are other fair methods I’m sure.

In practice, once the principle of the at fault party being responsible for the future non fault loading is accepted (which it sounds like you do), the sums involved are relatively small and so a method of calculating the loss should be easy to arrive at which will work in the vast majority of cases.

The sensible solution might be an industry wide agreement not to load premiums for non faults accidents. This would remove the problem entirely but I won’t hold my breath

ukmike

I agree with vaio.6 months ago i was hit by a German lorry when overtaking it.Liability has just been admitted & my £350 excess refunded by my insurers-Esure.It has gone down as a no fault accident.When my insurance is due for renewal next month,i will be paying £50 more due to the no fault claim.When i rang the recovery office at Esure,i was told i couldn't claim for the loss of £250(5 years x £50).I told them i should be put back to the position i was immediately prior to the accident but they still said no,that's not possible.The only way to claim it back would be me taking the German driver's insurance company to court which just isn't worth the hassle for that sum of money.All wrong.