Insurer refusing car insurance after accident and pay out.

Mildly_Miffed

Baldytyke88 said:

She had an accident that wrote off her car, so not really a small accident.

TBF, for a 13-14yo Ford Ka, no insurer is going to entertain much more of a claim than a broken headlight and a very minor cosmetic paint scratch... if even that.

The car's just too low value.

The OP makes no mention of any damage to the wall that so callously leapt out in front of the ice-skating car.

400ixl

As people have said, your daughter was at fault for the accident. There was no 3rd party for the insurer to claim against, she was not driving to the conditions and had an accident. So this would be classed as an at fault accident and the excess would be due. These things happen and we learn from them.

With Hastings you are dealing with a bottom dwelling insurer where price does often mean poor T&C's and service.

If she is paying monthly, then Hastings will expect for the policy to be paid up in full. Some insurers expect that at the point of claim, others allow the payments to remain in place.

Most insurer allow for a replacement car to be put on the policy (and any mid term adjustment put in place if the policy price changes as a result).

When you say he went back to Hastings to insure the new car, was it to add it to the existing policy, or to get a price for a new policy? Sounds like the former and they have refused to add it. Whether that is against their T&C's I don't know, but as said Hastings are one of the insurers who look to increase prices wherever they can or limit any of their risks. Your daughter is now a much higher risk to them.

If the £700 is the amount of cost left to pay for the policy that you have made a claim on, then you are unfortunately bound by the contract to pay that.

The question would be whether they should have covered the new vehicle on the existing policy. Check your contract T&C's to see if it explicitly covers the topic and their rights. If not covered, raise a formal complaint and if you don't get a satisfactory answer, take it to the ombudsman.

Herzlos

Aretnap said:

Herzlos said:

It's a silly system, but "at fault" basically means the insurer paid out. "not at fault" just means they reclaimed the money from elsewhere. So your daughter was at fault.

Not sure that it's a silly system. If nothing else whether or not the insurer was able to recover it's costs from a third party is something that's completely objective and verifiable.

Whereas two people can have very different opinions on who was to blame for an accident. If you skid in icy conditions is that an unavoidable act of God, or a sign that you should have been driving more carefully in the conditions? And if it's taken as the former, what's to stop everybody who takes a corner too fast and hits a wall claiming that they skidded on ice (or perhaps oil, if it was the middle of summer) and getting their claim recorded as non-fault? 

Agree that the term fault is potentially misleading and but would be better if insurers used different jargon. But it's important that this is declared as a fault claim to insurers now, as that's how it will be recorded on the databases.

I fully agree with the concept of at fault insurance and recording who paid out of what, my objection is just the term 'fault' because it implies culpability and confuses a lot of people. There are fairly common questions that boil down to "Why did the insurance company mark me at fault when I wasn't?"

saajan_12

Herzlos said:

Aretnap said:

Herzlos said:

It's a silly system, but "at fault" basically means the insurer paid out. "not at fault" just means they reclaimed the money from elsewhere. So your daughter was at fault.

Not sure that it's a silly system. If nothing else whether or not the insurer was able to recover it's costs from a third party is something that's completely objective and verifiable.

Whereas two people can have very different opinions on who was to blame for an accident. If you skid in icy conditions is that an unavoidable act of God, or a sign that you should have been driving more carefully in the conditions? And if it's taken as the former, what's to stop everybody who takes a corner too fast and hits a wall claiming that they skidded on ice (or perhaps oil, if it was the middle of summer) and getting their claim recorded as non-fault? 

Agree that the term fault is potentially misleading and but would be better if insurers used different jargon. But it's important that this is declared as a fault claim to insurers now, as that's how it will be recorded on the databases.

I fully agree with the concept of at fault insurance and recording who paid out of what, my objection is just the term 'fault' because it implies culpability and confuses a lot of people. There are fairly common questions that boil down to "Why did the insurance company mark me at fault when I wasn't?"

Things can be an accident and at fault (in the colloquial sense of the word) at the same time.. if I drop a bowl and it smashes, I'm not a terrible person but its still my fault and my responsbility to cover any damages. 

born_again

Shame that OP did not comment when they came back on 10-02 to the answer's.🤷‍♀️