Motor claim after collision with deer

Zhuzhi

Why are insurance companies allowed to treat collisions with animals as "at fault" claims????
My car was written off after a stag jumped down from a hill through a bush onto my bonnet. I wasn't told at the time that the claim was treated as "at fault accident". When renewing my insurance cover, I declared it as "not at fault accident" and 3 months later I got a letter from my insurer demanding £170 on the top I'd already paid (around £400). My claim is treated the same way as if I caused an accident! And this will be the case for the next 5 years while I have to declare it every year when purchasing an insurance cover. 
Has anybody tried to dispute this stupid rule? 

DullGreyGuy

Zhuzhi said:

Why are insurance companies allowed to treat collisions with animals as "at fault" claims????
My car was written off after a stag jumped down from a hill through a bush onto my bonnet. I wasn't told at the time that the claim was treated as "at fault accident". When renewing my insurance cover, I declared it as "not at fault accident" and 3 months later I got a letter from my insurer demanding £170 on the top I'd already paid (around £400). My claim is treated the same way as if I caused an accident! And this will be the case for the next 5 years while I have to declare it every year when purchasing an insurance cover. 
Has anybody tried to dispute this stupid rule? 

Fault as far as most insurers are concerned is if at the end of the claim they have any outlay. They cannot sue the stag to recover their outlay and therefore it's a fault claim. Just the same as if someone vandalises your car, you're involved in a hit and run, the third party has no insurance etc etc

There are various insurers that have "promises" that deviate from that standard approach, Direct Line currently has the most generous that excludes claims like an animal hitting your car as being classed as fault but that unfortunately is for when the incident happened and so its not a case you can go to them now and they'll ignore that claim. 

You are somewhat lucky they are only demanding £170, in principle they could have argued you were reckless in falsely declaring it a non-fault claim and so voided your policy and kept the premiums. If you look at the renewal documents from your last insurers it almost certainly shows the claim and shows its a fault incident. 

dunstonh

Why are insurance companies allowed to treat collisions with animals as "at fault" claims????

Because deers do not take out insurance.

. I wasn't told at the time that the claim was treated as "at fault accident"

That is correct because there is no other party to claim from and you have suffered the loss.

When renewing my insurance cover, I declared it as "not at fault accident" and 3 months later I got a letter from my insurer demanding £170 on the top I'd already paid (around £400).

That is understandable as you gave them incorrect information.

Has anybody tried to dispute this stupid rule? 

What stupid rule?

When you make a claim, if the money is recovered from another party it is classed as a no-fault claim.  If the money is not recovered from the other party, it is classed as a fault claim.

Slinky

Maybe it's not a stupid rule, as a poor description. Non-recoverable claim would be a better one perhaps.

400ixl

The term could be different, but essential "at fault" essentially means there was no other party to recover from. Non Fault is when 100% of the costs are recovered from another party, anything lower than 100% makes it at fault. So even a 50/50 is an at fault claim.

DullGreyGuy

400ixl said:

The term could be different, but essential "at fault" essentially means there was no other party to recover from. 

It's not only "no other party", it's that they've failed to recover.

It does occasionally happen that vandals are identified and so there is a party to attempt recovery from but the kinds of people that go round damaging other people's cars for kicks are not typically the ones with thousands in the bank to repay the repairs, particularly if they are subsequently are at his majesty's pleasure. 

Aretnap

I agree that the use of the term "fault" is misleading, and if the question the insurer asked you was unclear or if they didn't explain what they meant by "fault" then you may have grounds for complaint on that point.

On the wider question of how insurers clarify claims like this however, the current system makes a lot of sense. If nothing else it has the advantage of being simple and objective - whether or not your insurer recovered is costs from another party is a simple question of fact which is easily verified.

Who was "at fault" for an accident is a much  knottier question - two people can have very different views on who is to blame for a given accident. Were you really not at fault for the vision with the deer? If you'd been driving more slowly and cautiously through the woods at night would you have been able to avoid the collision? How about if you'd been paying more attention to the road ahead? I'm not casting aspersions - I don't know the answers to these questions  but neither did your insurer. And if the other party is ab deer it's not as if there's going to be a court case to determine blame. Your assignment send to be that the insurer should just take your word for it when you say you were blameless and it was all the deer's fault. A moment's thought might illustrate why insurers might be registrant to go down that road.

Ultimately of its something that your feel strongly about you can view with your wallet and indeed an insurer like Direct Line who promise to treat collisions with animals as non-fault, but as mentioned it's a bit late for that to make a difference to your current situation.

user1977

Aretnap said:

Were you really not at fault for the vision with the deer? If you'd been driving more slowly and cautiously through the woods at night would you have been able to avoid the collision? How about if you'd been paying more attention to the road ahead? 

Fair questions, but note the OP doesn't say they were moving (or even in the car) at the time.

Aretnap

user1977 said:

Aretnap said:

Were you really not at fault for the vision with the deer? If you'd been driving more slowly and cautiously through the woods at night would you have been able to avoid the collision? How about if you'd been paying more attention to the road ahead? 

Fair questions, but note the OP doesn't say they were moving (or even in the car) at the time.

Fair point, but as another scenario suppose the OP had been driving at high speed through a dark wood with his headlights off - then told his insurance company that he'd been sitting parked when a deer came flying out of the bushes and through his windscreen. Again it seems that the insurance company would just have to take his word for it and record it as no fault, or conduct a costly and quite possibly inconclusive investigation by getting an expert to examine the damage and see if it was consistent with his story

By a similar token if being hit while parked by an untraced car led to your claim being treated as no fault, everyone who damaged their cars by reversing into a bollard or tree would claim that the damage was done by an untraceable car in the middle of the night. Which is why even insurers who promise not to charge an excess or reduce your NCD if you're hit by an uninsured driver promise usually require at least evidence of the other car's existence before they will apply it.

Linton

“At fault” is a technical term. It does not imply that someone was responsible.

Insurance companies charge on the basis of statistical risk. In general people who have made a claim are more likely to make a future claim than those who don’t, For example you may live or frequently drive in an area where deer are common.