Insurance question for a lunatic

AdrianC

sparkychris wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for paying the three grand repair bill himself and keeping his no claims...

Even if the other driver was stupid enough to agree, he'll spend the next five years hoping like hell that nobody discovers his lie.

sparkychris

AdrianC wrote: »

Even if the other driver was stupid enough to agree, he'll spend the next five years hoping like hell that nobody discovers his lie.

Why?!

What would be wrong with that?

stator

You should inform your insurer of the crash and you would have to tell the future insurers of the incident too. But if you pay the guy in cash and he doesn't make a claim, then you don't declare a claim because there wasn't one.
The question is: do you trust the guy to not make a claim on your insurance even though you've already paid him? A lot of people get tempted by the ambulance chasers.

sparkychris

stator wrote: »

You should inform your insurer of the crash and you would have to tell the future insurers of the incident too. But if you pay the guy in cash and he doesn't make a claim, then you don't declare a claim because there wasn't one.
The question is: do you trust the guy to not make a claim on your insurance even though you've already paid him? A lot of people get tempted by the ambulance chasers.

This won't happen... The thing happened in the company car park and everybody is trustworthy...

Was just wondering whether it was financially a good idea to cover the repair in cash and keep the insurance company out of it....

Car_54

What do you mean by "trustworthy"? Do you mean equally willing to help mislead the insurers? Isn't that "untrustworthy? I'm confused!

sparkychris

Car_54 wrote: »

What do you mean by "trustworthy"? Do you mean equally willing to help mislead the insurers? Isn't that "untrustworthy? I'm confused!

I think you're quite probably being facetious but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm lovely.

Surely if person A decides to pay for the damage he's caused because its more financially viable for him to do so and both parties are in agreement, then he doesn't need to involve the insurance company? In my mind it's quite a reasonable choice for one to make without 'misleading ' anybody...

If it's illegal to do this, and every minor scratch or ding absolutely must go through an insurance company then I stand corrected.

If I knew all the legalities involved, then I wouldn't be asking questions like this on a motoring forum on a moneysaving website on the Internet...

If you're still confused, I'll try and repost this using shorter words.

Because I'm lovely.

facade

The terms of the insurance policy will specifically require every "accident/incident" resulting in a scratch or ding to be reported.

The insurer is gambling the possibility of paying out millions over the next year against the certainty of getting £1300 cash on day 1.

They will certainly need all the facts to make an accurate judgement whether the £1300 is a worthwhile risk, and a history of minor dings with parked cars would affect that call, as even a car knocking off your mirror when you are parked affects the statistics.

The reason people don't tell them is because they know that their risk will change if they do, and insurers will want more money for many years.

So they are acting to deceive by not reporting.

sparkychris

facade wrote: »

The terms of the insurance policy will specifically require every "accident/incident" resulting in a scratch or ding to be reported.

The insurer is gambling the possibility of paying out millions over the next year against the certainty of getting £1300 cash on day 1.

They will certainly need all the facts to make an accurate judgement whether the £1300 is a worthwhile risk, and a history of minor dings with parked cars would affect that call, as even a car knocking off your mirror when you are parked affects the statistics.

The reason people don't tell them is because they know that their risk will change if they do, and insurers will want more money for many years.

So they are acting to deceive by not reporting.

I see..... But in the real world- if somebody pays for damage out of their own pocket to keep insurance premiums down, they're not going to tell their insurance company are they?

So person A has two options

1) pay for the damage himself and be 3000 down immediately (whilst keeping Schtum to his insurance company, naughtily) and enjoying cheap insurance from August onwards with every possibility of getting away with it or
2) inform the insurance company, have them pay the 3000 and have increased premiums for years.

Morals and legality to one side....

Which works out cheaper?

maddogb

My eyes are itching like crazy this morning so making it hard to read but did I miss something?
The OP appears to be saying that his friend will pay for the damage himself rather than claiming.
I can't see where it suggests he will hide the accident from his future insurers, these are two different things and I just can't see it?



*edit

lol as I was typing the OP added that^


There is a third option, pay the money and still declare the accident, can't see it affecting the premiums if there was no claim.

sparkychris

maddogb wrote: »

My eyes are itching like crazy this morning so making it hard to read but did I miss something?
The OP appears to be saying that his friend will pay for the damage himself rather than claiming.
I can't see where it suggests he will hide the accident from his future insurers, these are two different things and I just can't see it?



*edit

lol as I was typing the OP added that^


There is a third option, pay the money and still declare the accident, can't see it affecting the premiums if there was no claim.

That's part of the thing though. Would declaring the accident increase premiums? If not- why declare it, and if so- this means there would be no incentive to pay the 3000!