Small claims court for increased insurance premiums?

john_l84

Posting on behalf of my partner here. She was hit by a bike whilst she was stationary, and as the biker is not co-operating with the insurance company she has had her premiums increased as it's considered 'at fault' until they can conclude the investigation.

The hike is considerable - over double what she is paying now.

Assuming her insurance company eventually do get the 'at fault' position corrected to 'no fault', can she take the driver to the small claims court to recover the cost of the increased premiums?

AndyMc.....

How has she paid the new policy and what did they say about the increase should she be found not to be at fault?

Car_54

The only way the claim will become 'no fault' is if the insurer recovers its costs from the cyclist. That seems unlikely, but if it does happen then the premium increase should be much smaller, and arguably not the cyclist's fault.

Nasqueron

Car_54 wrote: »

The only way the claim will become 'no fault' is if the insurer recovers its costs from the cyclist. That seems unlikely, but if it does happen then the premium increase should be much smaller, and arguably not the cyclist's fault.

She said "biker", it seems likely it is a motorbike. If it was a cyclist with insurance (such as BC membership that gives third party liability) then there is no reason to not co-operate as there are no premiums to be affected, just a single annual membership fee

foxy-stoat

john_l84 wrote: »

Posting on behalf of my partner here. She was hit by a bike whilst she was stationary, and as the biker is not co-operating with the insurance company she has had her premiums increased as it's considered 'at fault' until they can conclude the investigation.

The hike is considerable - over double what she is paying now.

Assuming her insurance company eventually do get the 'at fault' position corrected to 'no fault', can she take the driver to the small claims court to recover the cost of the increased premiums?

The insurance companies do not consider increased insurance premiums a "head of claim" even though they are a consequence of an accident. If the price has doubled then shop around.

If you do decide to go down the small claims route then I wish you all the luck and may set a precedent.

Car_54

foxy-stoat wrote: »

The insurance companies do not consider increased insurance premiums a "head of claim" even though they are a consequence of an accident. If the price has doubled then shop around.

If you do decide to go down the small claims route then I wish you all the luck and may set a precedent.

Premium increases after a non-fault accident are justified by evidence that those involved in such accidents show a higher than normal risk of having further accident(s). This is usually explained by a pattern of driving (or parking) which makes such accidents more likely.

I would suggest that this pattern of behaviour has always been there, and the accident has simply brought it to the insurer's attention. The increased premiums are therefore not the fault of the TP.

AndyMc.....

foxy-stoat wrote: »

The insurance companies do not consider increased insurance premiums a "head of claim" even though they are a consequence of an accident. If the price has doubled then shop around.

If you do decide to go down the small claims route then I wish you all the luck and may set a precedent.

I didn't think you could set a precedent in County Court.

unholyangel

AndyMc..... wrote: »

I didn't think you could set a precedent in County Court.

They can be used as a persuasive precedent but they don't set a binding precedent.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

They can be used as a persuasive precedent but they don't set a binding precedent.

AFAIK small claims hearings are not reported, and so can't be used as a precedent of any description.

Nobbie1967

Car_54 wrote: »

Premium increases after a non-fault accident are justified by evidence that those involved in such accidents show a higher than normal risk of having further accident(s). This is usually explained by a pattern of driving (or parking) which makes such accidents more likely.

I would suggest that this pattern of behaviour has always been there, and the accident has simply brought it to the insurer's attention. The increased premiums are therefore not the fault of the TP.

Harsh, but true.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

AFAIK small claims hearings are not reported, and so can't be used as a precedent of any description.

I can assure you, they can be (and are) used. However as its not binding, its wholly up to the judge hearing the case if they want to allow it, even if the facts of the case are identical.