Advice on insurance increases after non-fault accident?

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

I've asked about this (claiming back loaded premiums as uninsured losses) on The Motley Fool and got advice from a well respected poster there who is a solicitor.
His opinion is that this is claimable as an uninsured loss.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/are-any-of-them-solicitors-no-but-many-people-12397437.aspx
I wonder whether those that have had advise not to claim are suffering from lousy/lazy solicitors who don't want to bother becasue it's a bit difficult.

It's far more likely that as most of these solicitors are paid by insurers they are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.

The entire thread seems to have exactly the same views as expressed on here, reading through it all.

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

I've asked about this (claiming back loaded premiums as uninsured losses) on The Motley Fool and got advice from a well respected poster there who is a solicitor.
His opinion is that this is claimable as an uninsured loss.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/are-any-of-them-solicitors-no-but-many-people-12397437.aspx
I wonder whether those that have had advise not to claim are suffering from lousy/lazy solicitors who don't want to bother becasue it's a bit difficult......

Clitheroekid sounds like a very clever & perceptive bloke

rs65

I think he is right in principle but there are obstacles.

Insurers will reimburse uninsured losses generally in line with what a court would award. I am not aware of any case law which supports reimbursement of such premium loadings.
Presumably Clitheroekid isn't either as the case referred to is similar (but different enough) and is older than me.

To recover a loss you have to prove it is directly attributable to the other party and as Lisa has alluded to, this may not be the case. You would have to prove to the court that it was not just the insurers perception of risk.

You also have to quantify a loss which you may be able to do at the present time so another challenge would be to forecast the future and again convince the court.

So, at the moment, I don't think such premium loadings are recoverable but that may change in the future. As was mentioned on the quoted thread, these loadings are a fairly recent development - perhaps too recent for case law to exist.

Maybe clitheroekid would take such a case to court to establish case law. Its easier to make a case to the third party insurers if you can quote case law such as vaio v quentin 2011

property.advert

An interesting additional thought could perhaps help sway some opinions.

In a scenario where the innocent party was just on the cusp of acceptability for insurance because of their previous claims history in the preceding X years and this indecent pushes them over that boundary, where insurance on anywhere near normal terms is impossible, would that constitute a viable claim ?

If you accept that it would, does that not equally apply to an increased premium whilst remaining insurable ?

Furthermore, if this incident edges you closer to being uninsurable, then there should presumably be compensation for that as well.

Personally I don't think the insurance industry wants any of this to go to court as they do not want their dirty linen publicly displayed and their files and methods put under scrutiny.

malkie76

Up'ing my old thread, but I felt it was worth updating the community over the outcome.

My insurance premium came through and indeed it was increased, but nothing outrageous and probably in-line with that companies generic increases (Admiral) - came to about £500.

I did the usual meerkat shuffle and got a quote from the online arm of Aviva for £250, which I've gladly taken. Obviously I've declared the non-fault accident, but it didn't seem to make any difference.

lisyloo

It doesn't sway my opinion at all.
You are entitled to be put bank into the same position as if the accident had not occured.
Have you heard of the "Eggshell skull" principle which is a well established legal doctrine.
It doesn't matter if someone suffers an unusual high amount of damage due to vulnerability or pre-existing medical condition, if you do damage you are responsible for rectifying that (financially).
Same goes for if someone is driving a Ferrari or on the cusp of insurability.

vaio

Thanks for the update, the real test would be to see if the Aviva quote went down without the non fault included

malkie76

I can't imagine getting less than £250.
I live in the south east, massive NCB, car off road during day and night, BUT, it's a 2.5 litre turbo charged ford focus.
I haven't had £250 for many years.

I'm more interested to see if this is a teaser rate, and they'll bump to £500 next year hoping I won't 'rate tart'.

dacouch

It will increase next year as you won't get however many months free they are currently giving out

rs65

Glad this thread has been bumped as I was out for lunch with a couple of lawyers the day after I last posted her and forgot to post again.

I asked them if an increase in premium would be a recoverable loss for an accident that was someone else’s fault and their reaction was ‘yes’.

After a while they decided that the duty of mitigation would be very significant. If you just renew at an increased premium, you would need evidence of the amount directly attributable to the non-fault claim. You would also need to prove that you have mitigated your losses. As Malkie has just posted, despite Admiral increasing the renewal premium, Aviva would quote less so no loss has been suffered (unless you can prove that Aviva also loaded).

It then becomes more complicated because you shouldn’t be forced to compromise cover or security of insurer simply and simply take the cheapest quote. Unless it becomes industry standard that non-fault claims attract a loading then such a claim will require significant evidence.

In conclusion, if they were pursuing a claim they would certainly include premium loadings. If defending, they would be more confident that such a claim could be successfully defended rather than pursued.