Insurance claim coming back to haunt me

Gorbstein

Hi,

In May last year while driving on the right lane of the motorway at 70mph my bonnet catch failed, causing the bonnet to spring open and smash the windscreen and roof. On pure adrenaline I managed to navigate rush hour traffic and park up safely on the grass verge (no hard shoulder there).

I could not afford to repair the bonnet, roof and windscreen myself, so after being towed to safety I claimed on my insurance with Admiral, who took the car away and repaired it without asking too many questions. I lost my NCB (only 2 years, not a big deal) and my premium jumped a little, but that's life. (If navigating a busy motorway at 70 onto a grass verge with no view forward while covered in glass without hitting any objects doesn't mean I'm a safe driver.. welcome to the insane world of insurance and questionable risk calculation!)

However the problem is that now I'm looking at a new car and as I look for insurance quotes I'm finding that all insurers I've tried are now wanting to class my claim as an 'at fault accident' with 'no other car involved', and the resulting premium hike is outrageous. It seems 'the system' can only classify this incident as if I lost control and drove into a wall.

I fear I already know the answer to this, but does anyone know if there is anything I can do to somehow reclassify this incident in the minds of insurers? I think it's insane that mechanical failure can lead to me being lumped into a high risk category for the next 5 years.

Thanks for reading.

bartelbe

I'm no expert, but this seems to cover it

In general there are two types of claim: a 'fault claim' and a 'not fault claim'. The type of claim you make depends on whether or not your insurer is able to recover all the costs of the claim from a third party. In some cases this means that even if you were not to blame for an accident, you may still have to make a fault claim. For example, if your car is stolen, or it is set on fire, and you make a claim it will be a fault claim, because your insurer cannot recover the costs from anybody else.

So what they are saying, is since no other party was involved, then you bare the costs and are seen as a higher risk.

Others with better knownlege can confirm if that is correct.

marlot

The fault/not at fault is purely about whether the costs were reclaimable from someone else.

arcon5

That's because you are at fault. As in no other party was responsible for the incident.

rich13348

I heard a while back about a spate of a specific make and model of car having this problem and it was down to a manufacturing fault. You could try and claim back of the manufacturer for a defect and then you could pay the insurer via manufacturer and bump it down to a non-fault claim. Maybe. It's a long shot. It was on Watchdog and it was a Renault Clio.

Johno100

Well if your premium only jumped slightly at your last renewal with Admiral(?) after the accident, have you looked at the cost of a simple change of vehicle with your existing insurer?

BTW are you sure the hike is all down to the accident, you haven't told us what vehicles you are changing from and too?

Quentin

arcon5 wrote: »

That's because you are at fault. As in no other party was responsible for the incident.

No.


"Fault" just means the insurer had to pay out themselves, and is nothing to do with "blame".


You get a fault claim against you even when you are totally innocent but there is no third party to claim off.

Quentin

Gorbstein wrote: »

... I'm looking at a new car and as I look for insurance quotes I'm finding that all insurers I've tried are now wanting to class my claim as an 'at fault accident' with 'no other car involved', and the resulting premium hike is outrageous. .....

Assuming you are currently insured with Admiral, why aren't you just changing your car over on your policy?


If Admiral won't cover your new car maybe as has been suggested it's your choice of car that is causing the higher premiums you are being quoted.

Quentin

rich13348 wrote: »

I heard a while back about a spate of a specific make and model of car having this problem and it was down to a manufacturing fault. You could try and claim back of the manufacturer for a defect and then you could pay the insurer via manufacturer and bump it down to a non-fault claim. Maybe. It's a long shot. It was on Watchdog and it was a Renault Clio.

Were this the case the insurer should have pursued the manufacturer.

robatwork

"fault" - well it's more your fault for not checking your latch than mine.

However you should tell us the make model and year of your vehicle.

There are plenty of car dealers lurking here, and they may just have an advisory that would help you.

If you can prove to Admiral that there was a known problem with these latches and the car should have been recalled or fixed in a service you may get them to reclassify.

loskie

If due to a mechanical failure it is good to hear that the insurance paid out.