Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

    • dactel
    • By dactel 29th Aug 17, 9:35 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Not at fault but "at fault"! The BARE-FACED CHEEK of insurers
    • #1
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:35 PM
    Not at fault but "at fault"! The BARE-FACED CHEEK of insurers 29th Aug 17 at 9:35 PM
    I was driving down the motorway and an an object flew up at my car and did 1,400 of damage. I have a dashcam in my car and can see how the object, possibly a piece of wood, was lifted up off the tarmac by the car in front before it hurtled towards my car. The insurers have a copy of this video.

    My insurers say that I am 'at fault' for this yet in reality I am well and truly the victim here and not 'at fault' in any way according to the normal meaning of the phrase. This means that I am having to pay an extra 33% on my premium.

    I know this term 'at fault' is a technical term but how can the insurers get away with this. Is there anything I can do?
Page 2
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 1st Sep 17, 8:08 AM
    • 1,060 Posts
    • 527 Thanks
    Their not 'playing the game', they have paid out and not recovered their loss, which makes the claim a 'fault' claim!
    • Aretnap
    • By Aretnap 1st Sep 17, 9:52 AM
    • 2,976 Posts
    • 2,490 Thanks
    Thanks everyone for the feedback here. Although I am willing to 'move-on' can't help but think I (along with thousands of others) are the victim of a scam.
    Originally posted by dactel
    It's not a scam - it's just a way of classifying claims. There's a certain logic to classifying them according to whether your insurer made recovery from someone else rather than according to "blame". Blame is a somewhat nebulous and subjective concept - two people can have very different opinions on who was to blame for an accident, but whether or not your insurer made recovery from the other side is an objective fact, which is easily checked.

    If you don't like this rather binary approach and would prefer something that takes the specific circumstances of your own accident into account then there are options available. You could go to Lloyds of London, sit down for tea and biscuits with your underwriter, chat to him in detail about your accident and see whether he thinks that it marks you out as a higher risk. However you would inevitably have to pay extra for that sort of bespoke service - probably a lot more than the 130 that your insurer's computer wants to charge you - so in practice nobody does it.

    I am looking at renewal with another company. One of the questions asks about this claim, "Was the driver at fault"? A 'Yes' or a 'No' makes a 130 difference to my premium. I am entitled to the normal everday interpretation of the word 'fault' surely. Would appreciate comments on this.
    I don't actually think that's an absurd argument, and I do agree that the use of the term "fault" is potentially misleading, and insurers should clarify what they mean by it rather than expecting consumers to understand industry jargon. However given that the consequences of a declined claim can be devastating, it's not an argument that I'd want to (literally) bet my house on for the sake of 130. Especially as in your case you evidently know what the jargon means, so can't honestly claim to have actually been confused by it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

262Posts Today

5,059Users online

Martin's Twitter