Don't understand how this is an At Fault Claim, and why Insurance didn't try to recover costs (Car)

saajan_12

TryingToBeSmarter said:

I'd rather have the option to just pay the insurance company back, considering a) they already get the insurance premiums paid to them and b) it will cost me more over 3-5 years of insurance than the cost of BOTH of the claims. I get it is a "just in case you write off your or other cars" but again - this was nothing to do with any other cars, is a fraction of the cost of a car and will cost me more than both claims combined in increased insurance (i.e the difference between what it would have been and what it is because of the claims).

Remember the increased premiums aren't to compensate for the PAST damages. Its to account for the likelihood of a repeat occurrence in FUTURE - in case another vandal damages your car (doesn't matter that it wasn't another car). So paying for the past damages wouldn't help. 

sheramber

Would the person who damaged your car have the money for repairs to 7 cars?

If he had no money then the insurance company would not be able to reclaim their costs. 

That means they have to meet the cost making it an ‘at fault’ claim.