Insurance - Have You Had An Accident In Last 5 Years?

neilmcl

deaston wrote: »

So, assuming the OP was parked in a marked bay etc., shouldn't he be compensated by the third party for his increased premiums?

With the vehicle parked and no-one even in it, it is very clearly the third party's fault, so why should the OP be out of pocket at all?

Insurance isn't about fault, it's all about risk. Unfortunately, and statistically, the OP is now at a higher risk of submitting further claims down the line.

Richard53

deaston wrote: »

So, assuming the OP was parked in a marked bay etc., shouldn't he be compensated by the third party for his increased premiums?

With the vehicle parked and no-one even in it, it is very clearly the third party's fault, so why should the OP be out of pocket at all?

neilmcl wrote: »

Insurance isn't about fault, it's all about risk. Unfortunately, and statistically, the OP is now at a higher risk of submitting further claims down the line.

Regardless of the increased risk to the insurer (which is understood), I think Deaston's point was that the OP should not be out of pocket as a result. He should, morally at least, be able to claim against the TP for the increased premiums. How this could be quantified I have no idea, though.

Marvel1

Yes it will increase, mine did, car hit while parked outside my house.

neilmcl

Richard53 wrote: »

Regardless of the increased risk to the insurer (which is understood), I think Deaston's point was that the OP should not be out of pocket as a result. He should, morally at least, be able to claim against the TP for the increased premiums. How this could be quantified I have no idea, though.

He can, it's referred to as uninsured losses, so of the OP want's to make a claim he has to follow the legal route and do it privately, and as you say claim for any quantifiable losses incurred.

Car_54

Richard53 wrote: »

Regardless of the increased risk to the insurer (which is understood), I think Deaston's point was that the OP should not be out of pocket as a result. He should, morally at least, be able to claim against the TP for the increased premiums. How this could be quantified I have no idea, though.

The risk (due to parking habits) has not in fact increased, it has simply been brought to the insurer's notice for the first time. Any potential increased premiums are not due to the TP's negligence, but to the OP's wife's driving. All the TP has done is to highlight this.

AndyBSG

deaston wrote: »

So, assuming the OP was parked in a marked bay etc., shouldn't he be compensated by the third party for his increased premiums?

With the vehicle parked and no-one even in it, it is very clearly the third party's fault, so why should the OP be out of pocket at all?

Exactly this.

Neither myself or my wife have had an insurance claim in 21 years of driving for me and 19 years for her.

The wife had parked in a small car park(only 12 spaces), perfectly within the lines, etc and the vehicle had been there for a good 40 minutes.

Then some idiot HGV driver decides to drive into the car park he should never have gone in with a vehicle of that size just because he couldn't be bothered to walk a few extra yards and reverses into our unoccupied 6 week old car.

Net result we are now deemed an insurance risk and have to face a hike in premiums through no fault of our own.

As stated, in a perfect world, the insurance claim against the third party should reflect this.

kmb500

deaston wrote: »

So, assuming the OP was parked in a marked bay etc., shouldn't he be compensated by the third party for his increased premiums?

With the vehicle parked and no-one even in it, it is very clearly the third party's fault, so why should the OP be out of pocket at all?

no, the other party's insurer should pay out for all damages but premium increases are not accounted for. Would be a nightmare if any time someone's insurance premium went up, say, at their renewal 7 months after an accident, and they tried to reclaim money.


It sucks and it's ridiculous but that's how it is. If someone hits you and it was not your fault, your insurance premiums will increase. My dad was rear ended while stationary in a queue and as a result, my insurance went up £300 as he's a named driver who drives my car once in a blue moon. nothing you can do about it except shop around.


insurance companies are money grabbing evil companies, they will use any excuse to steal more money from you. It is a shame insurance is a legal requirement, it means you have to accept their stupidly high rates.

Aylesbury_Duck

kmb500 wrote: »

insurance companies are money grabbing evil companies, they will use any excuse to steal more money from you. It is a shame insurance is a legal requirement, it means you have to accept their stupidly high rates.

To view that from another perspective, what premiums would you charge if you were to set up your own insurance company tomorrow? You've only got to read a sample of the incidents cited on here to realise that the seemingly unlikely happens all the time. If you were to insure me, for example, what amount of money would you want from me each year to cover the risk that I might cause or be involved in an accident that causes thousands of pounds of damage, or perhaps thousands or even millions of pounds of injury costs?

It's a good job insurance is a legal requirement. If you were to be grievously injured in an accident in which you were totally innocent, would you be happy that your treatment, earnings and life-changing consequences were going to be limited by the amount of assets you might be able to claim from the guilty party, or would you just hope to only be hit by wealthy drivers?

kmb500

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

To view that from another perspective, what premiums would you charge if you were to set up your own insurance company tomorrow? You've only got to read a sample of the incidents cited on here to realise that the seemingly unlikely happens all the time. If you were to insure me, for example, what amount of money would you want from me each year to cover the risk that I might cause or be involved in an accident that causes thousands of pounds of damage, or perhaps thousands or even millions of pounds of injury costs?

It's a good job insurance is a legal requirement. If you were to be grievously injured in an accident in which you were totally innocent, would you be happy that your treatment, earnings and life-changing consequences were going to be limited by the amount of assets you might be able to claim from the guilty party, or would you just hope to only be hit by wealthy drivers?

If it was my insurance company I wouldn't charge someone anything extra for having a no fault accident... clue in the name "No fault".


Also why would medical treatment be limited by your bank account? Have you heard of the NHS?

Richard53

kmb500 wrote: »

If it was my insurance company I wouldn't charge someone anything extra for having a no fault accident... clue in the name "No fault"

But insurance companies base their premiums on risk, not fault.


You could have a hundred accidents a year that were not your fault, but your insurer would be justified in regarding you as a high-risk customer and adjust your premium accordingly.