Car insurance claim

McKneff

Do you not feel that it is now worth insuring fully comp.

Say your wife had been badly injured in this accident, hospital for months and then in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

TPF&T - nothing

Fully comp - big fat payout to her for her injuries.

It happens, as you have seen, she has been extremely lucky to more or less walk away from it all

You keep saying, 'I' in your post, lots of times, surely you should be saying 'we' youre a family with children.

Sgt_Pepper_2

McKneff wrote: »

Do you not feel that it is now worth insuring fully comp.

Say your wife had been badly injured in this accident, hospital for months and then in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

TPF&T - nothing

Fully comp - big fat payout to her for her injuries.

It happens, as you have seen, she has been extremely lucky to more or less walk away from it all

You keep saying, 'I' in your post, lots of times, surely you should be saying 'we' youre a family with children.

The wife was driving, it was her fault. No claim in that.

pendulum

I can't even get a TPF&F quote to come out cheaper than a Fully Comp one. I've tried for the last two renewals and simply haven't managed it.

bobobins

Ah, she insists i deal with all the financial stuff hence the "i" thing. I think our best bet now, seeing as were going to have to pay the years premium anyway is to go down to the local DVLA office on monday and put the car in her name. I can cancel the swiftcover insurance as it's still within the 14 day cooling off period and i can get the initial payment back. The only reason we're not with the original insurer is because they wouldnt insure on a car in my name (didnt know they didnt do that) and the cancellation hasnt been completed yet so it should be ok to put it her name and stop the cancellation. Higher premiums in the long run but it works out best for all involved.

McKneff

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

The wife was driving, it was her fault. No claim in that.

On fully comp, whether at fault or not, surely she would have been able to claim for her own injuries or am i wrong here?

Sgt_Pepper_2

McKneff wrote: »

On fully comp, whether at fault or not, surely she would have been able to claim for her own injuries or am i wrong here?

Yes, you're wrong there and would have been in for a shock had you tried to claim for such. The driver is the only uninsured person in a car.

pendulum

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Yes, you're wrong there

He's wrong to assume it's included perhaps, but it often is. You have to check the policy as each one varies as to whether personal injury cover for the policyholder is included or not.

Sgt_Pepper_2

pendulum wrote: »

He's wrong to assume it's included perhaps, but it often is. You have to check the policy as each one varies as to whether personal injury cover for the policyholder is included or not.

Never has been for at fault claims.

pendulum

From privilege.com: 2 What is the difference between comprehensive and third party fire and theft insurance?
1. Comprehensive (Fully Comp)
This covers the policyholder for all third party risks and accidental damage to the insured vehicle. It also covers for items like personal accident/injury, death of policyholder, medical expenses, personal effects, in-car entertainment and windscreen.

From fastquotes: Fully Comprehensive Insurance will also cover you for everything in a Third Party fire and Theft policy, in addition you might find you are covered for loss or damage to personal effects, accidental damage and medical expenses too

After a 2 minute search it seems Zurich offer medical expenses included for some fully comp policies - yes, there are claim limits.

geri1965_2

McKneff wrote: »

The fire service, ambulance and maybe the police all make claims to the insurance company.

Really? I have never had claims from police and fire service when dealing with motor claims. NHS charges are recoverable, which is about £600 for the ambulance.