Other party's insurance company want us to settle with them?

puddy

My OH had someone run into the back of him yesterday whilst he was stationary.

He has informed his insurance company and the police and now has received message from the woman's insurance company saying that he should deal with them directly and not claim through his own company.

I seem to recall this when this happened to me (exactly the same accident) and I ignored their calls. But I dont know what the standard advice would be, is it best to go through your own insurances and if so why?

Quentin

You need to inform your own insurer of the incident, but you don't need to make a claim if the third party is prepared to accept liability.

You can insist the car goes to your choice of repairer, and ask them to provide a replacement car (at their cost) whilst yours is in for repair.

This saves you having to pay your excess and reclaiming it along with any other uninsured losses from the third party, and your NCD remains unaffected by this. (If you claim off your own insurer, they can reduce your NCD until they are reimbursed in full by the third party which can be a pain if your renewal becomes due whilst the matter is still open).

Lum

What Quentin said basically.

It's worth considering as when two insurance companies are involved, even simple cases like this can drag on for years if there's a !!!! up by either insurer (trust me, I speak from experience here) at which point the NCD loss can become permanent.

vikingaero

Most Insurers do this when they accept liability or "settle your claim without admission of liability" to minimise their costs. They will pick up your car, provide you with a loan car, and repair it and return it to you. Of course if you go through your own insurance it may end up at the same repairer. They obviously do this so that you don't go to a scammy Credit Hire company.

marlot

I think a lot of insurance companies are realising that if they get in touch with you quickly, they can keep their costs down by getting you on the road again quickly.

Another forum had an interesting post this week, on the latest twist on car insurance claims - just when I thought I'd heard them all ...

Fallows v Harker Transport is about a minor road accident in Romford. Liability was accepted but the damages recoverable were in dispute. Should have been settled without coming anywhere near a court. However it has been used to challenge the practices of one of the UK’s largest insurers, Royal Sun Alliance (RSA). The court would seem to have decided to make an example.

In brief, RSA set up a subsidiary to do repairs but in practice it was subcontracting the work to private bodyshops. The bodyshop then billed the RSA subsidiary the cost of the repair on a parts/labour + VAT basis. The subsidiary was then adding various charges, including uplift to the repairer’s labour rate and seeking recovery of the higher sum from the defendant. The charges were not transparent or justifiable and were in part brought to light by discrepancies in the VAT charged.

The judge disallowed all the additions, awarding only the bodyshop charges and made a costs order against the claimant. He roundly condemns RSA for their practices, what he sees as their persistent attempts to evade the court’s disclosure protocols and to ‘venue shop’ around County Courts in the hope of finding a more sympathetic bench.

Full text is at www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/16.html

InsideInsurance

Most insurers try to "capture" the third party when their client is liable because there is benefit to them to put more work through their own network suppliers (thus lowering the cost as more business = bigger discounts) and highly important to cut out credit hire charges which can be 5 times or more the cost an insurer can get the same vehicle for from a non-credit arrangement.

As long as your not claiming for injury there is little reason not to use them. The only slight disadvantage is that you have no protection from the Financial Ombudsman Service when claiming from a TPI as they aren't your insurers.

If you are claiming injury then the jury is more out on if you should continue to deal direct or not. If you speak to someone who works for a solicitor or claims management firm they'll tell you that youll get a smaller settlement. If you speak to someone who works for an insurance company they'll tell you that youll get a fair or even larger settlement.

puddy

no, he says hes not injured although he was thrown forward.

i also realised recently that my own settlement with the same sort of accident (where i was injured) didnt take into account the increase in insurance costs over the next few years due to the fact that i have had an accident (even though i kept and currently have my NCD). recently my OH renewed his insurance and when he first put in my details as a named driver he didnt put my claims in, when i told him what they were his incrreased by £83 over the year because of my accident. I dont know what mine 'increased' by as it has gone down since i passed my test (4 years ago)

so will he need to make a claim for this sort of increase. do i need to let my own insurance know as he is also a named driver on my car (as i am on his)? wll this increase my insurance?

Quentin

puddy wrote: »

.....so will he need to make a claim for this sort of increase. do i need to let my own insurance know as he is also a named driver on my car (as i am on his)? wll this increase my insurance?

He can make a claim, but tell him not to hold his breath waiting for it to be paid!

You do need to inform your own insurer about any changes to named driver's history (including claims/incidents/convictions/notifyable health problems/occupation changes etc)

If it does affect your premium that should not be until renewal.

puddy

Quentin wrote: »

He can make a claim, but tell him not to hold his breath waiting for it to be paid!

You do need to inform your own insurer about any changes to named driver's history (including claims/incidents/convictions/notifyable health problems/occupation changes etc)

If it does affect your premium that should not be until renewal.

really, so the other insurer wont consider a claim for the extra costs incurred by both of us in the future because of this other driver? that doesnt sound very fair

i thought i read on here that people should calculate that into their claim?

property.advert

puddy wrote: »

really, so the other insurer wont consider a claim for the extra costs incurred by both of us in the future because of this other driver? that doesnt sound very fair

i thought i read on here that people should calculate that into their claim?

You have to remember that it is the 3rd party who is liable, not their insurance company. If you incur expenses which are not covered by their insurance then you need to approach the 3rd party directly.

As the full extent of future insurance increases specifically due to their negligence cannot always be estimated and many people have no idea how to extrapolate even a rough estimate from currently available data, you may need to revisit the question of future costs at a later date.

If in doubt, I would not settle "full and final" but would reserve the right to return at a later date. personally, I would settle now and provide calculations based on estimates derived from the data available.

Remember, the Smalls Claims Court is where you may end up. Any recipient of a summons must weigh up whether it is financially prudent to settle or incur costs defending what is likely to be a rather small amount, most likely in the hundreds of pounds.

Quentin

property.advert wrote: »

You have to remember that it is the 3rd party who is liable, not their insurance company. If you incur expenses which are not covered by their insurance then you need to approach the 3rd party directly.

It makes no difference who you approach over your uninsured losses!

If you approach a third party directly, then they will pass on the correspondence/claim/court documents to their insurer to deal with!

(But as far as future premium increases are concerned, these are not considered uninsured losses.)