No fault insurance premium increase

NotAtFault

Jasonh2015 said:

How many fault/non fault accidents have you had? a single non fault accident is unlikely to increase the premium that much.

Three now. 1. Speeding and aggressive driver on a roundabout tried to cut someone else up and ended up going into the back of me (about £2000), 2. Speeding driver took off my wing mirror while I was legally parked in a layby entering my destination details into my satnav like a good boy (£350). And now someone goes into the back of me by not paying attention (£2500)

NotAtFault

Also my wife (same car) has a fault claim because some nice men stole the catalytic converter from the car (it's a hybrid - over £3000). Of course that was her fault and the police were far too busy to actually catch anyone despite having the car park cctv of the whole thing (3mins and 30 secs, cloned plates). We now have a cat loc, identity marked registered and smartwatered catalytic converter, tilt sensor, very loud additional siren, and front and rear hardwired dashcams to go with our 40 years each of never having had an accident ourselves.

NotAtFault

As NotAtFault has found out, that’s not how insurance works. If you know of any case law where increased insurance costs have been claimed I would be interested to read the reasoning.

Well I've now got to the bottom of why increased premiums aren't reclaimable. In law they're considered too remote from the incident itself. Problem is it's an inexact argument as to what's too remote and what isn't. The point is that apparently there is case law that says it is, but not that I've found a single solicitor yet that can cite an actual case. I will keep digging. 

It would take a judge to change the law and would undoubtedly go up to a higher court on appeal and the costs would be considerable. That's why no-one's ever challenged this. Maybe there's a judge out there who's had someone go into the back of them!

AdrianC

NotAtFault said:

As NotAtFault has found out, that’s not how insurance works. If you know of any case law where increased insurance costs have been claimed I would be interested to read the reasoning.

Well I've now got to the bottom of why increased premiums aren't reclaimable. In law they're considered too remote from the incident itself. Problem is it's an inexact argument as to what's too remote and what isn't. The point is that apparently there is case law that says it is, but not that I've found a single solicitor yet that can cite an actual case. I will keep digging. 

It would take a judge to change the law and would undoubtedly go up to a higher court on appeal and the costs would be considerable. That's why no-one's ever challenged this. Maybe there's a judge out there who's had someone go into the back of them!

How much time, effort and blood pressure are you willing to put into what you yourself estimate as £250...?

Jenni_D

NotAtFault said:

It would take a judge to change the law and would undoubtedly go up to a higher court on appeal and the costs would be considerable. That's why no-one's ever challenged this. Maybe there's a judge out there who's had someone go into the back of them!

FYI judges don't make the law, they apply it (and interpret it where necessary). Parliament makes laws.

Pedantry perhaps, but an important distinction.  

ontheroad1970

NotAtFault said:

I read this thread with interest. My car was hit from behind a couple of weeks ago. The guy was honest and accepted liability straight away. However I can estimate from quotations that our renewal premiums (I'm a named driver on my wife's car so this affects both our cars) will go up by somewhere between £250 and £1200 over five years (depending on the insurer providing the quotes).

This isn't the first time this has happened to us either over the last 5 years either and on each occasion the circumstances and location have been different. One time we were hit while parked by a speeding driver who lost control of his car. Another time it was someone on a roundabout who was driving aggressively, tried to cut someone else up and hit us in the rear as a result. On all occasions the other party was 100% at fault, accepted liability and we recovered all our costs from them.

My wife and I have something like 40 years of no-claims each and we're careful and considerate drivers.

So this time I submitted a claim for the additional premiums on the basis that they were reasonable and foreseeable (that's the legal test). I've checked with two solicitors and both have said that although it would be unusual to claim for the additional premiums (just because they'd never heard of anyone doing it), they couldn't see any reason why such costs shouldn't be recoverable.

I actually claimed for the lower figure (£250), to be reasonable and in the interests of reaching a settlement quickly. It probably won't be sufficient but it would at least go part of the way.

The other party's insurance company have done something I didn't expect. They've point blank refused to accept liability for my increased premiums (even though they're paying for my car repairs etc) and have given me their solicitor's details in case I want to take them to court.

That's obviously going to cost them much more than the £250 I was claiming, so why would they do that?

Either there's a precedent that neither of the solicitors I spoke to knew about or the insurance company just thinks I won't take them to court. You'd think they'd be concerned that if I'm successful, it would open the floodgates for similar claims going back 6 years (I think that's the limitation period), not to mention future claims.

The point is that car insurance companies currently get a free ride (pun intended). They charge non-fault customers a higher premium and never have to pay it out. That seems unfair (there's unfair trade practice legislation to consider here too).

But keeping it to the accident, I'd be really interested in finding out if anyone has actually taken a motor insurance company to court over this point. Also if any solicitors or barristers read this who have specialist knowledge of the industry and feel they can assist in this case, please let me know.

Thanks

You ought to try and work in events as I do.  Insurance for cancellation has gone up by 40% due to COVID.  Guess what isn't covered?  Covid related cancellations.  So they increase the weighting for something they aren't covering.  

NotAtFault

AdrianC said:

How much time, effort and blood pressure are you willing to put into what you yourself estimate as £250...?

Very true. There's only a point in pursuing it if there's a real chance of getting a judgement in my favour. Clearly there isn't.

NotAtFault

Jenni_D said:

NotAtFault said:

It would take a judge to change the law and would undoubtedly go up to a higher court on appeal and the costs would be considerable. That's why no-one's ever challenged this. Maybe there's a judge out there who's had someone go into the back of them!

FYI judges don't make the law, they apply it (and interpret it where necessary). Parliament makes laws.

Pedantry perhaps, but an important distinction.  

Hey Jenni not at all. Whether judges actually make law or not is really down to semantics. The jurisprudential concept of Legal Realism says they do as their decisions are legally binding but I take your point that they interpret existing law rather than actually creating completely new laws. However changing the interpretation of an existing law is effectively the same thing (at least according to Legal Realism).

Anyway getting back to my motor insurance niggles, to change the current interpretation that increased premiums are non-recoverable financial costs, a decision would need to be made by at least the Court of Appeal and probably the Supreme Court. I would need to take it initially to the County Court and ask and be granted leave to appeal. Anyone with a spare half million who wants to try it, do get in touch

NotAtFault

ontheroad1970 said:

You ought to try and work in events as I do.  Insurance for cancellation has gone up by 40% due to COVID.  Guess what isn't covered?  Covid related cancellations.  So they increase the weighting for something they aren't covering.  

Yeah, they've got to pay for all those Covid claims they hadn't excluded prior to the pandemic. They win in the end.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Without wishing to cast aspersions, perhaps the insurers are applying some sort of 'Harvey Dent principle'.  @NotAtFault does seem to have had more than his fair share of bad luck.  It may simply be that the insurers are taking that into account making the assumption that the losing streak may well continue; maybe they even go so far as to think there might be something about his manner of driving that places him in more unfortunate situations than the average motorist.  

Such practices may be grossly unfair to a single individual, but there's nothing to stop insurance companies doing it.  The risk industry would cease to exist if they couldn't, as the whole business of writing policies is based on individual assessment of prospective policyholder and requirements.