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

vaio

I appreciate that responding does take time but you are just repeating yourself without addressing any of the arguments/examples others are raising.

In any event, in my case the legal team at Direct Line had the opportunity to present their arguments to a district judge and chose to pay rather than do so.

Whether this was because they realised their stance was indefensible (my view) or it wasn’t worth defending because of the unrecoverable costs involved or I was lucky I caught them in an altruistic mood when they felt like paying out unjustified claims or whatever doesn’t really matter.

The facts of my case are essentially the same as every other non fault loading case and I can’t see any reason why the decision (to pay) would be any different if any other innocent party pursued it to the point of issuing court papers as I did.

scooby75

Sorry, but I find that first sentence quite strange. I have stated the argument as to why additional premiums are non-recoverable. I have explained why and gave examples of the reason behind that concept. I have stated why I believe views to the contrary are incorrect. There isn't anything left to say without repeating myself!

Even if you could claim, how would this loss be quantified? What proportion of the increase in premium is down purely to the incident? How is profit removed from the equation? What if insurers simply decide they don't really want your business and decide to hike the premium up to deter you from taking a policy (as happened / still happens for Northern Ireland). How in that case will this be down to the incident and an insurer's idea of their target market? How would this work if another claim is made afterwards? What if there is another and insurance is refused? How is cumulative liability resolved then? There is one phrase to encompass it all: Proximate cause.

Believe me, I wish it were different because I wouldn't be paying higher premiums now. But it isn't, so I am.

vaio

scooby75 wrote: »

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

Given this is a thread about recovering consequential losses in non fault car accidents I’d have thought it would be pretty obvious that the injuries mentioned in my previous example were caused in the non fault car accident.

Having said that, the same principle of recovering consequential losses would apply however the injuries were caused provided there was an identified negligent party

vaio

scooby75 wrote: »

Sorry, but I find that first sentence quite strange. I have stated the argument as to why additional premiums are non-recoverable. I have explained why and gave examples of the reason behind that concept. I have stated why I believe views to the contrary are incorrect. There isn't anything left to say without repeating myself!.......

With respect you haven’t stated an argument, all you have done is repeat you view whilst singularly failing to identify the differences between the loss from a non fault loading which you argue isn’t claimable and the losses identified in the other examples given which you accept are claimable. A causal link exists in all of them, why are some claimable and others not? (and please don’t just repeat proximate cause, expand it, distinguish one from the other, identify what breaks the causation link in non fault loadings that doesn’t break it in the other examples given)

scooby75 wrote: »

.....Even if you could claim, how would this loss be quantified? What proportion of the increase in premium is down purely to the incident? How is profit removed from the equation? What if insurers simply decide they don't really want your business and decide to hike the premium up to deter you from taking a policy (as happened / still happens for Northern Ireland). How in that case will this be down to the incident and an insurer's idea of their target market? How would this work if another claim is made afterwards? What if there is another and insurance is refused? How is cumulative liability resolved then? There is one phrase to encompass it all: Proximate cause.......

Separate liability from quantum. The argument about how you quantify the loss doesn’t need to be addressed unless you accept liability exists. In any event, as mentioned earlier, there are multiple ways of assessing the amount. In my case I waited and identified the loading each year (as confirmed by my then insurance company), in other cases a formula similar to that used to quantify future loss of earnings could be used or even, given the relatively small costs involved, just a blanket payment of £500 or £1000 for every non fault victim.

Dynamic_Panda

Can I ask Vaio if you understand how a premium is calculated whether there has been an incident or not???????????

DP

vaio

Dynamic_Panda wrote: »

Can I ask Vaio if you understand how a premium is calculated whether there has been an incident or not???????????

DP

As previously mentioned my then insurance company were happy to confirm the non fault loading.

In other cases the loading can be identified by running two on line quotes, identical apart from declaring the non fault accident.

Either method would seem to separate out the non fault loading from general inflation increases

I'd be happy to hear your view on how premiums are calculated

Alcazar

I am presently renewing my insurance. Two years ago, my car was in a garage, I was 50miles away, and someone unfortunately reversed into my car. He very kindly saw to all the repair work. I phoned my then insurers just to check all was ok, which it was. Of course now, this one phone call means I have a claim, albeit, no fault, on my record, but as a notification only. But this still has an effect on my insurance premium going forward for three years. Statistically, a no fault accident means you are an increased risk of claiming in the future, which I can understand, but in this case, when I wasn't anywhere near the car, and my car was stationery, I don't see that the statistics apply. Why should I be penalised for three years going forward for something someone else did, albeit an accident. Any thoughts?

System

Alcazar wrote: »

......
Any thoughts?

Yep, my thoughts are....read the 4 pages of this thread and you will find your points have already been asked and answered - Doh ! :rotfl:

scooby75

Jeez, is this is going on?

Alcazar - the only chance you have is the same as some decision maker not properly understanding liability fully, like a few people who have posted on this thread.

As to why I keep repeating the same thing, its because it's the right answer which is, for anyone who can't be bothered to read it or just wants to ignore it...

THERE
IS
NO
PROXIMATE
CAUSE

gerrit?

No doubt someone else will come along and claim otherwise. I'd like to see a court case (and I mean a binding one that actually means something - for example - where a judge does see proximate cause and gives a r.d on it). As much as I would love to see one (I really would), I'm not holding my breath.

If you think otherwise, please go and get a solicitor to argue it for you. Good luck - you'll need it.

I'll leave the other two to babble nonsense otherwise. Have fun!

vaio

vaio wrote: »

With respect you haven’t stated an argument, all you have done is repeat you view whilst singularly failing to identify the differences between the loss from a non fault loading which you argue isn’t claimable and the losses identified in the other examples given which you accept are claimable. A causal link exists in all of them, why are some claimable and others not? (and please don’t just repeat proximate cause, expand it, distinguish one from the other, identify what breaks the causation link in non fault loadings that doesn’t break it in the other examples given).......

luckily I wasn't holding my breath