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

System

vaio wrote: »

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)

I don't actually. I don't believe that there is a case to claim future loading as there are too many variables used to calculate insurance including an actuary sticking his finger in the air and guessing a random factor to add.

System

vaio wrote: »

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



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

I agree with you....

The amount of compensation should be easily calculated by the insurance industry, since the various insurance companies do not seem to have any problem recalculating a new premium after a Non-Fault claim, and since it is the insurance industry that set the 5 year period for applying a premium loading, then the total compensation amount to recover the extra premiums for that 5 year period can be calculated at the time of the compensation claim.

It seems that insurers will often try to say "that is not covered" so until us motorists start making official complaints, going to the ombudsman and taking the third party insurers to court if needs be, then insurers are going to get away with it.

vaio

ukmike wrote: »

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.

Stick an official complaint in.

As it was a foreign lorry your insurance company will have reclaimed their costs (and your excess) from the lorry’s insurance company probably via the MIB.

To include some uninsured losses (your excess) but to refuse to include others (your future premium loadings) in that claim seems to me to qualify as “not treating the punter fairly”. If they don’t roll over & pay then refer it to the FOS

vaio

!!!!!! wrote: »

I don't actually. I don't believe that there is a case to claim future loading as there are too many variables used to calculate insurance including an actuary sticking his finger in the air and guessing a random factor to add.

Appologies, I thought you accepted the principle that identified loadings should be paid as a consequential cost by the at fault party and only differed from me in the practical difficulties of working out the amount.

scooby75

vaio wrote: »

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?”

But that does not establish legal liability upon which a claim is based. the "But for" test is only one part of a claim. You still have to establish proximity, of which there is none in motor claims for the reasons I have outlined earlier.

vaio

scooby75 wrote: »

But that does not establish legal liability upon which a claim is based. the "But for" test is only one part of a claim. You still have to establish proximity, of which there is none in motor claims for the reasons I have outlined earlier.

Yep, as you say the "but for" test is only one part but in my view only an idiot would argue that a documented non fault loading as the result of an accident fails the causation test.

In any event, in my case I gave Direct Line the option to paying my claim or explaining their reasons why not to a district judge.

For whatever reason they chose to pay rather than explain and I can't see that the decision would be any different in any of the other cases detailed in this thread.

scooby75

Selden wrote: »

Would that mean I can't claim for loss of earnings if injured by a negligent driver?

That is completely different. The loss of earnings incurred is as a result of not being able to attend work due to the injury. The "employer refusing to pay" bit is muddyinging the waters. Presumably, the no pay is due to not attending work due to the injury. That's a contractual issue and not a case of the emlpoyer deciding on a whim as to whether to pay you or not.

vaio wrote: »

Yep, as you say the "but for" test is only one part but in my view only an idiot would argue that a documented non fault loading as the result of an accident fails the causation test.

In any event, in my case I gave Direct Line the option to paying my claim or explaining their reasons why not to a district judge.

For whatever reason they chose to pay rather than explain and I can't see that the decision would be any different in any of the other cases detailed in this thread.

I would say that Direct Lie were frankly negligent in defending the claim in that case and that would be the sole reason. There is no legal situation determining that the additional premium incurred should be paid, merely that they did not explain why it should not be. You were quite lucky to get that.

scooby75

Selden wrote: »

Isn't the premium increase a contractual - or pre-contractual - issue?

And is the insurer really acting on a whim, or is it making a decision based on statistical evidence?

Would it be reasonably forseeable to a reasonable person that driving negligently could lead to damage to vaio's car and so to an increase in vaio's insurance premiums?

The point is still being missed. You are still focussing on chains of events. That is different to proximate cause.

Let me make this as clear as I can.

The increase in premium is a decision of the underwriter. That decision is the intervening factor. The car crash does not change the premium.

I really cannot make it any simpler than this.

vaio

scooby75 wrote: »

......Let me make this as clear as I can.

The increase in premium is a decision of the underwriter. That decision is the intervening factor. The car crash does not change the premium.

I really cannot make it any simpler than this.

Yep, but if the decision of the underwriter can be proved to be a consequence of the accident then the causation is complete.

By your logic Seldons (extended) case of Alex Ferguson deciding not to renew the contract of a footballer missing a leg as the result of someone else’s negligent driving wouldn’t attract compensation because of the intervening decision.

What about a between jobs Doctor rendered unemployable (i.e. an intervening decision by the Health Authority) as a result of personality change due to head injury? Does he get no compensation for loss future earnings (separately from the injury itself)?

What about ordinary Joe Punter, suffering changed personality due head injury who, as a result, commits crimes he wouldn’t have committed had he not been injured? Should he not get compensated for the consequences of committing the crimes as well as the original injury?

I accept there are limits to how far the causation test will extend but they are far far wider than you are suggesting. All the cases mentioned above would easily pass the causation test and qualify as consequential losses.

scooby75

I can only refer to what I said in my last post - you are still focussing on a chain of events and not enough on proximity. The examples just given relate more to a necessity to take that action than a decision not to. the last example does not give specific enough information to say anything one way or another. Who is culpable for this injury is just the first question (and I'm not going to answer any more examples because I don't have the time).

Please for heavens sake read up on proximate cause if you really want to know more - and I don't mean a quick wikipeek either. Spend a few days in a couple of good law books. And then good luck in convincing a court that you should be compensated for the additional premium (as opposed to being given it because the other party didn't bother arguing against it).