We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Claim on car insurance

13»

Comments

  • A lorry HGV would not normally have parking bays large enough to accomodate their size. Are you referring simply too something of a Transit sized vehicle.?.
    If the 3rd party pulled out in front of you then you have a responsibility to be aware of possible hazards and probably would be a 50/50 claim. However if the 3rd party was reversing then likely hood the claim would be in your favour. It is similar to someone pulling out of a junction in front of you, (not from the other side of the carriageway) yourself have a responsibility to look at the road ahead and be aware of any potential dangers like idiots pulling out.
  • DUTR wrote: »
    Well yes we agree it certainly reads that way, and the plaintiff insurance would have an easy closed case, the fact that they are defending it, suggests there is more to the episode from the other party to indicate it is not an easy clear close case.

    Or if both parties are with the same insurer they (the insurer) may see 50/50 as a great way to recoup more money by way of two raised premiums rather than one.
  • Or if both parties are with the same insurer they (the insurer) may see 50/50 as a great way to recoup more money by way of two raised premiums rather than one.

    That assumes that both customer remain with the same insurer.

    If this was really the case the consideration of the likely uninsured losses would make a much bigger difference. Assuming the TP is a HGV then the hire cost of a replacement rig is going to massively outweigh the additional premium generated from a private car policy having a single fault accident claim in which case you'd rule in favour of the uninjured car drive rather than go 50/50
  • I think Leedsmodus argument is wrong you can,t be at fault for not predicting what some one is going to do.The fact is he pulled away from stationary hitting my daughters osr wing with his nsf wing as she passed bye, she was on the service road he was in the car park and about to join the service road.I have told my daughter to tell her ins co "you don,t accept split liability as a previous poster suggested. I wonder if if she could get to his account of the accident, her ins co must have a copy
  • worldwize wrote: »
    I think Leedsmodus argument is wrong you can,t be at fault for not predicting what some one is going to do.The fact is he pulled away from stationary hitting my daughters osr wing with his nsf wing as she passed bye, she was on the service road he was in the car park and about to join the service road.I have told my daughter to tell her ins co "you don,t accept split liability as a previous poster suggested. I wonder if if she could get to his account of the accident, her ins co must have a copy

    There is special cases for HGV on roundabouts etc because of their turning circles but not from pulling away.

    The problem is we havent yet heard what the HGV has stated has happened. Your insurers should be requesting this. Often you'll find the circumstances are just given as being totally different, you say he pulled out and hit you, they claim they were stationary and you missjudge and hit their stationary vehicle
  • worldwize
    worldwize Posts: 18 Forumite
    just to follow up, my daughter,s car has been repaired the hgv insurers have finally accepted responsibility and she has had her excess returned
  • Good news :)
  • jimjames
    jimjames Posts: 19,263 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Mark_Mark wrote: »
    But a non fault claim won't affect your no claims bonus.

    But will (or may depending on insurer) affect your premium.

    I've just found out that a non fault claim where our car was parked and hit when stationary, where the third party insurers have accepted full liability, has still increased our premium.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
  • facade
    facade Posts: 8,063 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    jimjames wrote: »

    I've just found out that a non fault claim where our car was parked and hit when stationary, where the third party insurers have accepted full liability, has still increased our premium.

    They see you as more of a risk now you have proven yourself to either

    a) park in places where you might get run into
    b) be "unlucky"

    both of these may end up costing the insurers money, so they want to collect it off you first. ;)
    I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....

    (except air quality and Medical Science ;))
  • worldwize
    worldwize Posts: 18 Forumite
    Well we will just have to wait and see, if they try to load her premium at the time of renewal she will have to look for a better quote if she can
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.