Renewed and not advised on claim in company car

NX1977

In a panic to ensure I renewed with insurer, I haven't told them about an accident in my company car where I was rear ended by 3rd party.

Policy in my name, partner as main driver with me as named/occasional driver.

Now really worried about ringing to tell them, but know I must.

Policy as due on 5th, but renewed on 30th and paid in full.

Am I really in the do do? What are my options? Main worry is what happens with my employer if they void or cancel.

McKneff

I wouldnt worry about it too much, but you must inform them as soon as you can.

It was a non fault incident so it shouldnt be too bad. Some insurance companies up the premium and some dont.

Ive had 2 non fault incidents in 18 months and havent been penalsed at all. Once with Coop and again with Aegis.

You have no options at all. If you dont inform them, in the future any claim can be voided by the ins. company then yu really are in the do do and it will impact for many years when you try to get future insurance for anything. Thats far worse than maybe paying a few extra quid now.

If you do it now it will at least stop you worrying.
Let us know how you get on.

Quentin

If you tell them now there will be no problems whatsoever. Explain why you are late, and expect the possibility this may result in a premium increase/admin fee.

NX1977

Thanks all.

Confident I told them last renewal about when hit by unknown party (reported to police) but now worried about that as well.

Money I guess I can live with and fully accept as my fault I didnt ring them. Anything more I may have issues.

Is the red phone co generally accepting if come clean or harsh?

McKneff

They'll be fine, you'll feel better immediately I promise.:D

NX1977

McKneff wrote: »

They'll be fine, you'll feel better immediately I promise.:D

Insurance insider?

NX1977

By way of an update, all sorted.

Did cost me another £100 but I no longer have to worry. Was advised not an issue unless I'd needed to claim, or they'd done their regular automated sweep of CUE. In which case would have been in it.

Thanks again all.

mikey72

NX1977 wrote: »

By way of an update, all sorted.

Did cost me another £100 but I no longer have to worry. Was advised not an issue unless I'd needed to claim, or they'd done their regular automated sweep of CUE. In which case would have been in it.

Thanks again all.

No doubt an insurance advocate will be telling us your partner is more likely to have an accident in your car now as the main driver, because you've had a no fault one in a different car.

By the same reasoning, no doubt our home insurance should go up if the company we work for is broken into.

Spiderham

mikey72 wrote: »

No doubt an insurance advocate will be telling us your partner is more likely to have an accident in your car now as the main driver, because you've had a no fault one in a different car.

Go on I'll bite.

If you're a named driver, it's assumed you will use the car at some point so the fact you've had a non-fault claim makes you a higher risk in that insurer's view (I know your views on non-fault claim loadings, but that's a different argument for a different day) and applies a loading. The reasons the loading is probably the same as if it was the main driver, partially as they want to rate things on the highest level of risk to ensure adequate premium and partially (and I bet this is the main reason) the rating engine will almost certainly be simpler, cheaper to run and easier to check if all loadings are the same independent of named or main driver. Plus the insurer may just look at the aggregate claims experience for all drivers in their claims loading stage so one fault each may be the same as two fault overall.

Can't be certain how it works but there's a guess for you.

Insurers will try to use as many aspects they can as possible to work out how risky drivers are and charge them proportionally fair premiums (ie a twice a risky driver gets charged twice as much). People do complain that it's "unfair" for certain criteria to be used; I'd be interested to hear what people think are fair and unfair criteria.

Anyway to OP, glad you got it sorted and probably best to be safe rather than sorry.