Insurer added a notification of an incident as a claim and won't remove it - what are my rights?

[Deleted User]

k3lvc said:

Instead I'm being penalised for doing everything right and following the rules.

No - you're being 'penalised' for having had an incident and there still being potential for a claim 

Just taking this further.

If I hadn't been insured (I know this is outright breaking the law), I'd be penalised for not having insurance. They wouldn't be and would probably play victim of they survived.

If I'm insured and they get their way and die, I'm penalised for explaining what happened. They wouldn't/couldn't be.

If I'm insured and they survive, I'm probably penalised again because they have no means of having insurance as a pedestrian. They'd probably claim against my policy despite being in the wrong.

If I'm insured and we both die, no-one would be able to explain it or identify who was at fault. He gets his way though, and I die because he wants to end his life.

If I'm insured and die, and they survive, they'd probably claim against my policy and enjoy a payout at the expense of my life.

Really struggling to see what the point is of having insurance for situations like this. The only way to not get penalised for a situation like this is to not notify anyone. Bizzare. 

[Deleted User]

k3lvc said:

The act of selfishly putting his blood on other people's hands and risking the life of someone else for a quick exit (I'm well aware that I could have been more seriously injured @50mph on a 3-lane A road) has zero repercussions for the perpetrator. 

[DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

I don't expect people to understand what it was like for me. It's still selfish though and that's not in dispute. Taking your own life is one thing, taking someone else's as part of your process is pure evil.

[DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

Anyways, sticking to the topic in hand, thanks for your thoughts. 

binao

k3lvc said

[DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

The OP has experienced a deeply traumatic event as shown by his reply to the post by @k3lvc

The post by  @k3lvc will only add further trauma to that suffered by the OP. 

The OPs thread is only seeking help  re. his Insurers unfairness and intransigence.

jimbo6977

In respect of the traumatic nature of the incident - OP, please get medical help if you have not already. 

In respect of the insurance "claims" process and renewal pricing - If the OP does not want to claim against the pedestrian (either for moral reasons or because the PD/his estate appears to be financially insolvent) it is likely OP will have to put this down to "5h1t happens". I would however question with the insurer how there can be a loss of NCD when the NCD is supposedly protected.

I would also invite people to take a look at this from a different point of view. Imagine a relative of the PD, the executor of the estate, angry & grieving, or perhaps greedy.  Or imagine the PD named a charity as a residuary beneficiary in his will. If they are looking for someone to blame or for some way to increase the value of their bequest the obvious target would be the car driver. Of course such a claim might well be entirely without foundation, but that might not stop them trying. In which case the driver's insurer would have to defend the claim and incur costs doing so. 

binao

jimbo6977 said:

In respect of the traumatic nature of the incident - OP, please get medical help if you have not already. 

In respect of the insurance "claims" process and renewal pricing - If the OP does not want to claim against the pedestrian (either for moral reasons or because the PD/his estate appears to be financially insolvent) it is likely OP will have to put this down to "5h1t happens". I would however question with the insurer how there can be a loss of NCD when the NCD is supposedly protected.

I would also invite people to take a look at this from a different point of view. Imagine a relative of the PD, the executor of the estate, angry & grieving, or perhaps greedy.  Or imagine the PD named a charity as a residuary beneficiary in his will. If they are looking for someone to blame or for some way to increase the value of their bequest the obvious target would be the car driver. Of course such a claim might well be entirely without foundation, but that might not stop them trying. In which case the driver's insurer would have to defend the claim and incur costs doing so. 

One can imagine lots of stuff. 

Y  punchs "stranger" on the chin and Y breaks their hand. Are you suggesting  "stranger" could be liable for Ys  loss of earnings and medical  expenses etc.

Sandtree

Deleted_User said:

k3lvc said:

Instead I'm being penalised for doing everything right and following the rules.

No - you're being 'penalised' for having had an incident and there still being potential for a claim 

So if I'd had an incident where the guy happened to be in an insured car and decided to drive into me on the wrong side of the road head on with intent to die, my insurer wouldn't be holding me/my policy accountantable.

I can't see why anyone else besides me, considering the circumstances may I add, should be given the option of seeking any kind of financial compensation. It's a bit of a pisstake.

Firstly, yes, any newly reported incident or claim initially goes against the policy until liability is established. Its easier to do insurer to insurer because both sides do this for a living and can get away from the emotions of the situation

Secondly, in your case its car -v- pedestrian and as such one of those is considered a highly vulnerable road user. This has consequences for liability decisions and whilst it does happen, its unusual for the pedestrian to be held liable... more commonly is "contributory negligence" which doesnt change liability but reduces the settlement. Eg in a personal case, rather than professional, a colleague was very drunk and erratically tried to run across the main road at 3am in the morning and was hit by a car. In that case the car was held 100% to blame but only had to pay out 50% of the losses because of the contributory negligence.

An open file doesnt mean they anticipate to pay a claimant but means they acknowledge the chances of having to defend a claim. There is a secondary technical element here that insurers have to hold reserves against claims to ensure they are solvent and so acknowledging they may incur costs defending you they need something "open" to hold the reserve against it and can only close it when they are comfortable releasing that reserve.

Deleted_User said:

es5595 said:

Can you not claim against the estate for the damages to your car? 

If they deliberately and unquestionably attempted suicide, surely it was a deliberate act?
Obviously if there is no estate it’s not worth it, but might well be worth a quick look into. 

 I mentioned it to my insurer and they said it wasn't something they could advise on or help me with as it was outside of the their scope. I asked the police about it, but at the time I wasn't allowed to know much about him for confidentiality reasons. I didn't ask about who he was after that.

This is fully within the scope of your insurers to both advise and help with if you were to claim for your own damages on your policy as they then counter claim from the third party. If you have legal expenses cover then they equally will advise and help on your uninsured losses and may consider your vehicle damage if you dont want to claim off of your own policy.

The police wont be able to help on this area as its a civil not criminal matter

[Deleted User]

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:

k3lvc said:

Instead I'm being penalised for doing everything right and following the rules.

No - you're being 'penalised' for having had an incident and there still being potential for a claim 

So if I'd had an incident where the guy happened to be in an insured car and decided to drive into me on the wrong side of the road head on with intent to die, my insurer wouldn't be holding me/my policy accountantable.

I can't see why anyone else besides me, considering the circumstances may I add, should be given the option of seeking any kind of financial compensation. It's a bit of a pisstake.

Firstly, yes, any newly reported incident or claim initially goes against the policy until liability is established. Its easier to do insurer to insurer because both sides do this for a living and can get away from the emotions of the situation

Secondly, in your case its car -v- pedestrian and as such one of those is considered a highly vulnerable road user. This has consequences for liability decisions and whilst it does happen, its unusual for the pedestrian to be held liable... more commonly is "contributory negligence" which doesnt change liability but reduces the settlement. Eg in a personal case, rather than professional, a colleague was very drunk and erratically tried to run across the main road at 3am in the morning and was hit by a car. In that case the car was held 100% to blame but only had to pay out 50% of the losses because of the contributory negligence.

An open file doesnt mean they anticipate to pay a claimant but means they acknowledge the chances of having to defend a claim. There is a secondary technical element here that insurers have to hold reserves against claims to ensure they are solvent and so acknowledging they may incur costs defending you they need something "open" to hold the reserve against it and can only close it when they are comfortable releasing that reserve.

Deleted_User said:

es5595 said:

Can you not claim against the estate for the damages to your car? 

If they deliberately and unquestionably attempted suicide, surely it was a deliberate act?
Obviously if there is no estate it’s not worth it, but might well be worth a quick look into. 

 I mentioned it to my insurer and they said it wasn't something they could advise on or help me with as it was outside of the their scope. I asked the police about it, but at the time I wasn't allowed to know much about him for confidentiality reasons. I didn't ask about who he was after that.

This is fully within the scope of your insurers to both advise and help with if you were to claim for your own damages on your policy as they then counter claim from the third party. If you have legal expenses cover then they equally will advise and help on your uninsured losses and may consider your vehicle damage if you dont want to claim off of your own policy.

The police wont be able to help on this area as its a civil not criminal matter

So as there is no third party cover they can't counter claim anything. I'm beginning to think my insurer isn't particular good at what they do. They haven't been forthcoming wrt my options for claiming anything outside of claiming it as my own fault. 

Sandtree

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:

k3lvc said:

Instead I'm being penalised for doing everything right and following the rules.

No - you're being 'penalised' for having had an incident and there still being potential for a claim 

So if I'd had an incident where the guy happened to be in an insured car and decided to drive into me on the wrong side of the road head on with intent to die, my insurer wouldn't be holding me/my policy accountantable.

I can't see why anyone else besides me, considering the circumstances may I add, should be given the option of seeking any kind of financial compensation. It's a bit of a pisstake.

Firstly, yes, any newly reported incident or claim initially goes against the policy until liability is established. Its easier to do insurer to insurer because both sides do this for a living and can get away from the emotions of the situation

Secondly, in your case its car -v- pedestrian and as such one of those is considered a highly vulnerable road user. This has consequences for liability decisions and whilst it does happen, its unusual for the pedestrian to be held liable... more commonly is "contributory negligence" which doesnt change liability but reduces the settlement. Eg in a personal case, rather than professional, a colleague was very drunk and erratically tried to run across the main road at 3am in the morning and was hit by a car. In that case the car was held 100% to blame but only had to pay out 50% of the losses because of the contributory negligence.

An open file doesnt mean they anticipate to pay a claimant but means they acknowledge the chances of having to defend a claim. There is a secondary technical element here that insurers have to hold reserves against claims to ensure they are solvent and so acknowledging they may incur costs defending you they need something "open" to hold the reserve against it and can only close it when they are comfortable releasing that reserve.

Deleted_User said:

es5595 said:

Can you not claim against the estate for the damages to your car? 

If they deliberately and unquestionably attempted suicide, surely it was a deliberate act?
Obviously if there is no estate it’s not worth it, but might well be worth a quick look into. 

 I mentioned it to my insurer and they said it wasn't something they could advise on or help me with as it was outside of the their scope. I asked the police about it, but at the time I wasn't allowed to know much about him for confidentiality reasons. I didn't ask about who he was after that.

This is fully within the scope of your insurers to both advise and help with if you were to claim for your own damages on your policy as they then counter claim from the third party. If you have legal expenses cover then they equally will advise and help on your uninsured losses and may consider your vehicle damage if you dont want to claim off of your own policy.

The police wont be able to help on this area as its a civil not criminal matter

So as there is no third party cover they can't counter claim anything. I'm beginning to think my insurer isn't particular good at what they do. They haven't been forthcoming wrt my options for claiming anything outside of claiming it as my own fault. 

They can claim against anyone they want in exactly the same way you can, they may just decide its not economic to do so if there is no insurance in place that'd cover the incident. Home Contents insurance sometimes will respond to these types of incidents however "deliberate acts" are excluded. Having had the misfortune of dealing with a couple of claims involving self-immolation the fact someone commits suicide is not sufficient evidence alone that they werent in a state of mind to consider the consequences of their actions. 

In reality they are also going to consider the PR aspect of pursuing "the deceased relatives" of a "suicide victim"... though in the case of a PR based decision they normally will ensure their policyholder isnt worse off as a consequence. 

This however sounds more like the FNOL team coming up against an unusual case and trying to answer based on a lack of knowledge rather than admitting they dont know and having to refer to someone else. FNOL teams mainly are about getting the insured into your approved repairers and capturing the information required by the higher trained teams but unfortunately pesky policyholders ask questions. As a true call centre team (most claims dislike being labelled call centre) they are heavily targetted on KPI's like average call handling time etc and so putting people on hold to ask questions really messes up their stats... though not as much as being call audited and found to be breaching rules/giving wrong advice.

[Deleted User]

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:

k3lvc said:

Instead I'm being penalised for doing everything right and following the rules.

No - you're being 'penalised' for having had an incident and there still being potential for a claim 

So if I'd had an incident where the guy happened to be in an insured car and decided to drive into me on the wrong side of the road head on with intent to die, my insurer wouldn't be holding me/my policy accountantable.

I can't see why anyone else besides me, considering the circumstances may I add, should be given the option of seeking any kind of financial compensation. It's a bit of a pisstake.

Firstly, yes, any newly reported incident or claim initially goes against the policy until liability is established. Its easier to do insurer to insurer because both sides do this for a living and can get away from the emotions of the situation

Secondly, in your case its car -v- pedestrian and as such one of those is considered a highly vulnerable road user. This has consequences for liability decisions and whilst it does happen, its unusual for the pedestrian to be held liable... more commonly is "contributory negligence" which doesnt change liability but reduces the settlement. Eg in a personal case, rather than professional, a colleague was very drunk and erratically tried to run across the main road at 3am in the morning and was hit by a car. In that case the car was held 100% to blame but only had to pay out 50% of the losses because of the contributory negligence.

An open file doesnt mean they anticipate to pay a claimant but means they acknowledge the chances of having to defend a claim. There is a secondary technical element here that insurers have to hold reserves against claims to ensure they are solvent and so acknowledging they may incur costs defending you they need something "open" to hold the reserve against it and can only close it when they are comfortable releasing that reserve.

Deleted_User said:

es5595 said:

Can you not claim against the estate for the damages to your car? 

If they deliberately and unquestionably attempted suicide, surely it was a deliberate act?
Obviously if there is no estate it’s not worth it, but might well be worth a quick look into. 

 I mentioned it to my insurer and they said it wasn't something they could advise on or help me with as it was outside of the their scope. I asked the police about it, but at the time I wasn't allowed to know much about him for confidentiality reasons. I didn't ask about who he was after that.

This is fully within the scope of your insurers to both advise and help with if you were to claim for your own damages on your policy as they then counter claim from the third party. If you have legal expenses cover then they equally will advise and help on your uninsured losses and may consider your vehicle damage if you dont want to claim off of your own policy.

The police wont be able to help on this area as its a civil not criminal matter

So as there is no third party cover they can't counter claim anything. I'm beginning to think my insurer isn't particular good at what they do. They haven't been forthcoming wrt my options for claiming anything outside of claiming it as my own fault. 

They can claim against anyone they want in exactly the same way you can, they may just decide its not economic to do so if there is no insurance in place that'd cover the incident. Home Contents insurance sometimes will respond to these types of incidents however "deliberate acts" are excluded. Having had the misfortune of dealing with a couple of claims involving self-immolation the fact someone commits suicide is not sufficient evidence alone that they werent in a state of mind to consider the consequences of their actions. 

In reality they are also going to consider the PR aspect of pursuing "the deceased relatives" of a "suicide victim"... though in the case of a PR based decision they normally will ensure their policyholder isnt worse off as a consequence. 

This however sounds more like the FNOL team coming up against an unusual case and trying to answer based on a lack of knowledge rather than admitting they dont know and having to refer to someone else. FNOL teams mainly are about getting the insured into your approved repairers and capturing the information required by the higher trained teams but unfortunately pesky policyholders ask questions. As a true call centre team (most claims dislike being labelled call centre) they are heavily targetted on KPI's like average call handling time etc and so putting people on hold to ask questions really messes up their stats... though not as much as being call audited and found to be breaching rules/giving wrong advice.

I have to admit, I've been pretty blind to the fact that I was feeling with a FNOL team the entire time. By the dogs of it they must definitely gave limited or misleading information based on lack of knowledge in the area. They admittedly mentioned they'd not dealt with a case of this nature before, and I recall them saying because the person has passed away they couldn't go after them. I trusted they're word as I didn't know any better myself and believed that they had my best interest.

Sandtree

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:

k3lvc said:

Instead I'm being penalised for doing everything right and following the rules.

No - you're being 'penalised' for having had an incident and there still being potential for a claim 

So if I'd had an incident where the guy happened to be in an insured car and decided to drive into me on the wrong side of the road head on with intent to die, my insurer wouldn't be holding me/my policy accountantable.

I can't see why anyone else besides me, considering the circumstances may I add, should be given the option of seeking any kind of financial compensation. It's a bit of a pisstake.

Firstly, yes, any newly reported incident or claim initially goes against the policy until liability is established. Its easier to do insurer to insurer because both sides do this for a living and can get away from the emotions of the situation

Secondly, in your case its car -v- pedestrian and as such one of those is considered a highly vulnerable road user. This has consequences for liability decisions and whilst it does happen, its unusual for the pedestrian to be held liable... more commonly is "contributory negligence" which doesnt change liability but reduces the settlement. Eg in a personal case, rather than professional, a colleague was very drunk and erratically tried to run across the main road at 3am in the morning and was hit by a car. In that case the car was held 100% to blame but only had to pay out 50% of the losses because of the contributory negligence.

An open file doesnt mean they anticipate to pay a claimant but means they acknowledge the chances of having to defend a claim. There is a secondary technical element here that insurers have to hold reserves against claims to ensure they are solvent and so acknowledging they may incur costs defending you they need something "open" to hold the reserve against it and can only close it when they are comfortable releasing that reserve.

Deleted_User said:

es5595 said:

Can you not claim against the estate for the damages to your car? 

If they deliberately and unquestionably attempted suicide, surely it was a deliberate act?
Obviously if there is no estate it’s not worth it, but might well be worth a quick look into. 

 I mentioned it to my insurer and they said it wasn't something they could advise on or help me with as it was outside of the their scope. I asked the police about it, but at the time I wasn't allowed to know much about him for confidentiality reasons. I didn't ask about who he was after that.

This is fully within the scope of your insurers to both advise and help with if you were to claim for your own damages on your policy as they then counter claim from the third party. If you have legal expenses cover then they equally will advise and help on your uninsured losses and may consider your vehicle damage if you dont want to claim off of your own policy.

The police wont be able to help on this area as its a civil not criminal matter

So as there is no third party cover they can't counter claim anything. I'm beginning to think my insurer isn't particular good at what they do. They haven't been forthcoming wrt my options for claiming anything outside of claiming it as my own fault. 

They can claim against anyone they want in exactly the same way you can, they may just decide its not economic to do so if there is no insurance in place that'd cover the incident. Home Contents insurance sometimes will respond to these types of incidents however "deliberate acts" are excluded. Having had the misfortune of dealing with a couple of claims involving self-immolation the fact someone commits suicide is not sufficient evidence alone that they werent in a state of mind to consider the consequences of their actions. 

In reality they are also going to consider the PR aspect of pursuing "the deceased relatives" of a "suicide victim"... though in the case of a PR based decision they normally will ensure their policyholder isnt worse off as a consequence. 

This however sounds more like the FNOL team coming up against an unusual case and trying to answer based on a lack of knowledge rather than admitting they dont know and having to refer to someone else. FNOL teams mainly are about getting the insured into your approved repairers and capturing the information required by the higher trained teams but unfortunately pesky policyholders ask questions. As a true call centre team (most claims dislike being labelled call centre) they are heavily targetted on KPI's like average call handling time etc and so putting people on hold to ask questions really messes up their stats... though not as much as being call audited and found to be breaching rules/giving wrong advice.

I have to admit, I've been pretty blind to the fact that I was feeling with a FNOL team the entire time. By the dogs of it they must definitely gave limited or misleading information based on lack of knowledge in the area. They admittedly mentioned they'd not dealt with a case of this nature before, and I recall them saying because the person has passed away they couldn't go after them. I trusted they're word as I didn't know any better myself and believed that they had my best interest.

Best interest? Predominately

Some personal interest (not company)? Probably

Very few people want to work in FNOL and most are hoping either to leave insurance and call centres totally or move up to team leader or across to technical teams. This causes people to stretch their knowledge to prove they're ready for being targeted on their recovery rate or third party cost management rather than how often they use the toilet in a shift or time taken between calls to type notes etc.