Don't EVER notify your car insurance of an 'incident' if you don;t intend to claim!!!

olly300

raskazz wrote: »

A few points:

In law you must disclose any loss or damage that would be covered by the policy in question - whether fault or non-fault or settled privately. Whether you claim through an insurer for the loss or damage is irrelevant. If you fail to disclose such incidents then you are breaching the duty of utmost good faith, and you are then entering very dangerous territory. I have seen countless policies voided as a result of non-disclosure.

I agree with this as it is fundamental to contract law, however insurance companies are breaching their side of the contract by recording "incidents" that are not claims, whether fault or non-fault, as claims.

The computer system thing doesn't wash with me. They can happily get their computer systems designed to extract the most money out of people.


They can put up insurance for people having incidents but stating that someone has made a claim when they clearly haven't is false information, an abuse of position and is likely to fall under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations due to the insurance company having more power. ( The act can be read on the internet http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm )

Altarf I've heard lots of stories of people having "incidents" for lots of different types of insurance and invalidating their policies because they haven't informed the insurance company of everything as the insurance policy (contract) states.

raskazz

olly300 wrote: »

I agree with this as it is fundamental to contract law, however insurance companies are breaching their side of the contract by recording "incidents" that are not claims, whether fault or non-fault, as claims.

I can understand some frustration with regard to this. But to my eyes it's just slightly pointless semantic argument, as the end result is always the same.

Whether a privately settled loss is listed on documents/databases as a privately settled loss, or whether it is listed as a non-fault 'claim' with no settlement from either insurer, the underwriting result is exactly the same in respect of the premium offered.

Edit to add: I really do not think this would fall under the UTCCR either - it is not a term of the contract, merely a dispute over semantics.

ben500

Altarf wrote: »

A case that was reported in the newspapers a while ago was a person who had had their car stolen, but the insurance company was refusing to pay out.

Apparently they had admitted to the insurance company that the car had been broken into a couple of times, but they had not reported the incidents as they didn't want to claim and lose their no claims bonus, for the few cds and bits & bobs that had been taken.

The insurance company's response was that had they known about the previous breakins, then they would have considered the car at a higher risk and thus loaded the premium appropriatly. As they had not been informed they were invalidating the insurance.

So by all means don't tell the insurance company about accidents and thefts, but don't be surprised when they refuse your claim.

What you should do though, is if it is the fault of a third party then submit a claim to them/their insurers for the additional cost of your future insurance as an uninsured loss claim.

Good advice, it is also a good idea to remember in no fault claims that quite often if you agree to someone repairing your vehicle in a no fault crash and fail to report it, that the third party may well report to their insurers and this will come to light in the event you make a future claim, so not really a good idea to withold such info, it could very well cost you a lot more than the extra premium, and strangely enough I don't sell insurance.

olly300

raskazz wrote: »

I can understand some frustration with regard to this. But to my eyes it's just slightly pointless semantic argument, as the end result is always the same.

Whether a privately settled loss is listed on documents/databases as a privately settled loss, or whether it is listed as a non-fault 'claim' with no settlement from either insurer, the underwriting result is exactly the same in respect of the premium offered.

I wasn't arguing about claims, non-fault or fault, I was pointing out that recording incidents as claims is an act of bad faith by the insurance companies.

The majority of insurance policies clearly state the different between incidents and claims in their wording. The policies have to be stated in plain English otherwise they are considered unfair.

An incident is someone driving a car worth £250 already with dents in it into a lamp post or someone who shuts the garage door on their cheap car and gets some dents. In both cases they may report the event but they will not claim as they are not going to get it fixed and the other object is not damaged. (They have to do this otherwise they are in breach of their insurance policy. )Obviously if they had a more expensive car then they would claim.

raskazz wrote: »

Edit to add: I really do not think this would fall under the UTCCR either - it is not a term of the contract, merely a dispute over semantics.

I presume you read the act then.

All consumer contracts fall under the act which includes insurance policies, and all contracts in English and Welsh law have a term of good faith explictly written or implied in them.

BTW I didn't know you where an underwriter

ben500

The incidents are identified as claims to ensure they are considered when calculating premiums as they are a material fact in the calculation of risk.

robnye

its also worht bearing in mind that all insurance companies are sharing information now - online quotes will show specific claims for each car !

i recently had to get renewal quotes for my wifes car with me as a named driver - i made a claim back in 2001........ yet the computer quote system still picked it up - then asked me to confirm if i had any claims in the past 5 years (2007-5 = 2002) - but wouldnt let me remove the claim from 2001.........

Mozette

socks_uk wrote: »

I guess this is why it's a good idea to carry a disposible camera in the glove box for evidence. It may cost about £4 but it may save you £1000's if you have an accident (if you remember you have it of course!).

You are so right! In fact, as my old phone was giving up the ghost, I bought one with a camera just in case I encounter another such nutjob!

socks_uk

ben500 wrote: »

The incidents are identified as claims to ensure they are considered when calculating premiums as they are a material fact in the calculation of risk.

I can understand your point about calculating risks but my incident was just a case of me being in the wrong place at the wrong tome...

How on earth can the insurance companies calculate the risk of me being reversed into by a stolen car being chased by a police car???

I informed my insurance company that I was claiming from the MIB but my renewal has come through today with 0 years NCD and the incident listed as a claim. Oh yeah, and it's increased by £75, just for being honest! :mad:

craigboy

insurance is based on RISK.

You need to advise your insurer of any ACCIDENTS, LOSSES OR CLAIMS. Then the insurance is rated. A garage fell on your roof. An insurer would see you as a higher risk.

If you don't notify your insurer.......good luck when you come to make a claim mate!!

calisto

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but if every incident has to be informed to the insurer can someone advise:

I awoke this morning to find a copious amount of birdplop splattered on the car. So much that I found it quite a shocking incident.

I tried to remove the first spatter with some spit and an old McDonalds serviette I had in the car. Unfortunately this scratched the paintwork a bit. I guess a bit of T-Cut or something will restore it.

The other 2 splats I removed using a soapy sponge and warm water and managed not to leave any scrapes behind.

Should I inform the insurers? I am really nervous in case this affects future claims. I accept that I will suffer a minimum of £25 admin fee just for calling them, but the future "claims" record worries me.

Also, thinking about it, I am very anxious about modifications too. I've been reading these forums and was always under the impression a "mod" was a bodykit, outrageous alloys, engine mods, etc.

It appears that even a decal, or factory option is a mod. I am worried because I have a "Magic Tree" air freshener, and a factory fit "Fuel Computer" in the dash. I can inform my insurance company and will be met with a £25 admin fee for telling them, plus lord knows on the premium. But if I don't, I understand my RTA insurance is null and void?

Can a proper insurance underwriter confirm that they have the ability to void RTA insurance on their whim of what a "mod" is? Air freshener? Pen? Cup in holder? Parking Sensor? Sat Nav? Aftermarket air-filter / wiper blades / spark plugs / tyres?

Should I inform them I have a non-Ford/Motorcraft Oil Filter (MAHLE) and (FUCHS) semi-synth 5W/30 oil as pattern part replacements in my last service? £25 admin fee? + unknown mod fee? Most people who get their services done outside of Ford will have these parts and be completely oblivious to the fact.

How are the insurers allowed to void the legal minimum insurance on such items / trivial incidents?

I call total B.S.! The legal minimum cover is demanded by law. I can't see how trivialities can effect the contract. Just as Consumer Law protects against unreasonable terms in contracts with Dixons, Currys, etc.

Worst case I can see is they will not cover the parts in the case of Comprehensive own fault accidents. And the Admiral group are extremely perverse in this respect, as even if you do declare, you will not get the factory options back!