New insurance while pending no fault claim

AndyW1

Hi


In summary finding it very difficult to get new car insurance while a pending non fault claim is in progress under the current insurance - it really shouldn't be this difficult!! The new insurer seems to be behaving in an outrageous way. Hopefully someone can help - further details below:


My partner had an accident where someone pulled out of a side junction and drove directly into the side of her car as she drove past. With plenty of witnesses (it was rush hour) it was an undisputed fault of the other driver.


The insurance have already paid out on the car (which was a right off) but there is an on-going claim on the insurer of the other driver for expenses that is being disputed - specifically as my partner counts as self employed claiming for loss of earnings due to the crash is more complicated.


Now her insurance is up for renewal and the current insurer has put the price up substantially despite it being an undisputed non fault claim.


She obtained quotes from the market and has already paid the premium. She put the recent accident down as non fault as she has been told (e-mail confirmation from solicitors) and as is the 100% obvious case.


However it turns out that as the claim itself has not been fully settled (irrespective of it already been confirmed a non fault) her current insurer won't yet give the non fault confirmation to the new insurer. To get that apparently she has to cancel her claim for the additional expenses. The irony with that is they are effectively confirming it was non fault by saying that! Even if the other insurer wont pay for lost income there is no way that this can turn into a fault claim (her current insurer wouldn't cover expenses anyway).


Now the new insurer has told her either:

• To change the details on here quote to "fault". Something she cant do as she would effectively be lying on her insurance declaration by doing so. Incidentally they told her that she could subsequently change it back but then would charge her over £50 for doing so!!
• Or to cancel her additional expenses claim for the recent accident and therefore miss out on over £800 potentially.

This seems like outrageous behaviour by the new insurer and also existing insurer I'd say, but I'd like to know if this is one of the bizarre cases where insurance is an !!!.


Thoughts to explore:


She cant do either of the options they presented here with. She could cancel the new insurance but they will charge her an admin fee for doing so. What is the chance that another insurer would do exactly the same thing?


Has anyone else tried to claim for loss of income while self employed - if the chance of success is low then maybe cancelling that request may be worth it.


Urgent help here needed from an expert in insurance hopefully!!


Many Thanks in advance


Andy

paddyandstumpy

Until the claim is closed as non fault it will show as 'fault'.

You're confusing insurers view of 'fault' and yours, you refer to fault as blame and insurers refer to a 'fault' claim as one where the value of the claim isn't reimbursed by a TP.

DoaM

I was reversed into a few years ago. (No disputing fault - it was caught on CCTV). It took well over a year before the claim was fully settled and the CUE database was updated. (CUE is what all insurers refer to).

AndyW1

I should just double clarify that there is zero chance that this is a fault claim. It has already been confirmed the other driver is at fault. The only thing at dispute is the amount of expenses the other insurer pays. It has already agreed to pay up some, just not an agreement with regards to lost income. If thy don’t pay lost income no liability falls on the current insurer since expenses of that kind are not covered under that policy.

Thus this is no fault because there is nothing further Claimed on the current insurer

DoaM

Until both insurers have settled the entirety of the claim (including expenses, hire car charges etc.) and updated CUE then it remains as a "fault" claim against both parties.

As alluded to above, don't confuse "fault" (an insurance term) with "blame" ... in both your situation and mine there was no "blame" but the claim remained as "fault" until closed in CUE.

Just accept that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Other than reclaim the increased cost (due to "fault") once the claim is settled. You could also (although it may be too late now) claim expenses against the other party's insurer for increased insurance costs* due to their client's actions.

* Regardless of "fault", your insurance is going up anyway. There's been a claim therefore you are statistically a higher risk, so your premiums would likely go up regardless.

AndyW1

DoaM wrote: »

Until both insurers have settled the entirety of the claim (including expenses, hire car charges etc.) and updated CUE then it remains as a "fault" claim against both parties.

As alluded to above, don't confuse "fault" (an insurance term) with "blame" ... in both your situation and mine there was no "blame" but the claim remained as "fault" until closed in CUE.

Just accept that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Other than reclaim the increased cost (due to "fault") once the claim is settled. You could also (although it may be too late now) claim expenses against the other party's insurer for increased insurance costs* due to their client's actions.

* Regardless of "fault", your insurance is going up anyway. There's been a claim therefore you are statistically a higher risk, so your premiums would likely go up regardless.

Yes I agree the definition of fault claim is one where your insurer pays something out. However what is frustrating in this case is that there is zero chance of her insurer paying anything. The other insurer has accepted liability and the only thing left to dispute is the amount of expenses they will pay (the other insurer has already made an offer but it is at least £1k less than it should be) but if the other insurer doesn't pay them her current insurer has no liability for those expenses


In this case there is a £100 increase in the premium with the new insurer if this is counted as a fault rather than non fault.


Basically it seems this is a way insurers get to shaft policy holders by still keeping claims listed as fault even when they have zero chance of them paying anything out. Using as an excuse that the policy holder is still pursuing the other insurer for additional expenses not covered under their own policy. There surely is nothing in the legal sense that allows them to do that - its probably just become accepted practice because no one has bothered to sue them for doing that! They game the system by treating what are really non fault claims as fault ones on the off chance that they could become fault ones even when that chance is zero.

AndyW1

Just to add to that - I don't see anything in the legal definition as being "a claim is only non fault when an insurer can be bothered to get around to updating CUE to say it is settled"


The definition is "a claim where the insurer doesn't pay anything out" - when it becomes clear that the insurer is not liable to pay out that is when the claim should become non-fault. We have already passed that point in this case some time ago.

Nobbie1967

AndyW1 wrote: »

Just to add to that - I don't see anything in the legal definition as being "a claim is only non fault when an insurer can be bothered to get around to updating CUE to say it is settled"


The definition is "a claim where the insurer doesn't pay anything out" - when it becomes clear that the insurer is not liable to pay out that is when the claim should become non-fault. We have already passed that point in this case some time ago.

Presumably, until the claim is closed down you could add something else to the claim.

AndyW1

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Presumably, until the claim is closed down you could add something else to the claim.

Not in this case as everything payable under her insurance policy has been paid (and we presume refunded by the other insurer as they admitted liability). What is being pursued is costs not covered by her insurer but that can be due to be paid by the insurer of the other driver

AndyW1

I should also point out that the question asked by the compare the market on the form which was passed to the selected insurer was as follows:
Who was at fault for the accident? The options were
Both parties
Other party
Our driver
No other vehicle

As such the only possible answer was “other party” in this case. There was no dispute - it was the other party was the one at fault.

Another example is Aviva, their guidance on answering the
Was the driver at fault?
You’d say yes if you were held responsible or partly responsible
Your car is stolen or vandalised or damaged by fire or damaged by unknown persons

Again in this case the answer would have to be no, based on the guidance provided by the insurer as you were not responsible (this is their wording). There is nothing here about any claim for money still being open, it’s talking specifically about responsibility.

Maybe some insurers use an unnecessarily harsh definition for their own purposes!?

This is all a bit strange and inconsistent