Just after noon a young woman drove her car into the side of a son's new car (2,000 miles on clock so a newnew car).
Photos of cars taken on phone, name & address, telephone numbers, car Reg / Insurer. Photo of driver with both cars in background.
The 3rd party did not have a landline number which made my son nervous - she gave a mobile #, noted this & rang it - proves a genuine number at least. She said she would call her insurer from work which was 200 yds away.
Within an hour, phone call from 3rd party insurer admitting liability, agreed repair centre (who are on an insurance / bodyshop repair quote + pictures / invoicing etc etc system). Like for like car hire invoiced direct to them when car is being fixed
Repairer said his quote would be with 3rd party insurer by 5pm and he should get the go ahead by lunchtime tomorrow!
No form filling, no time awaiting Insurer assessor visits, no trailing round for 3 quotes etc etc
A stark contrast to someone running up the back of me @ red light 15 years ago in my 2 week old car - form filling, engineers visit, 3 quotes & 3rd party insurer shirking from a proper hire car (Micra courtesy car from bodyshop offered & I drove 500+ miles per week in those days). They backed down on carhire when I sent them the dearest quote for a week's hire - the reply was we can hire that car for £20 / day rather than the £50 I would pay. However, final settlement was 26 months later when they sent a cheque for the uninsured losses, lawyer's bill & other expenses - lawyer's expenses exceeded the £1100 repair bill!!
Summary of today - Annoying for my son but at least this 3rd party insurer is on the ball and the car should be fixed within a week or 2.
|
>>3rd party did not have a landline number which made my son nervous
Fast becoming norm. Plenty new clients at work have no landline and I get 'unavailable' once or twice every shift when trying to get hold of people on legacy fixed numbers. TBH if I didn't need a line for internet and the inconvenience of losing a number I've had since 1990 I'd think getting shot was worthwhile.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Mar 16 at 21:33
|
I have only had one recent dealing with motor insurance and that was with the missus' Beetle a few years ago.
The scenario you are painting is what I subsequently felt was the ideal - we went through our own, other party were 100% to blame but felt that that there was a lot of "milking" going on with car hires, injury claims etc.
If happened again, and as black and white, I would be trying to do the same as your son, speaking to the 3rd party insurer and say heres what i will accept in way of repairs and car hire and I am not the type to try and milk you.
As long as they dont then pass me to a third party "accident management company"!!
|
Potentially controversial but your son's insurance may increase as he has been involved in an accident even though it is not his fault and a claim was made against a 3rd party so don't forget to claim for the rise in insurance premiums from the 3rd party's insurers for the next 5 years. Your sons insurer will let you know how much the premium will increase by - worth it if the premium is going to increase by say £100 a year.
(Some insurers say you are an increased risk if you are involved in an accident even if it was not your fault and you didn't claim or claimed on a third party's policy.)
|
I should think it is controversial.
No doubt the insurers have a statistical basis for regarding a history of no-fault claims as a risk increase, i.e. those with recent no-fault claims are more likely than those without to have claims of one kind or another in the next 12 months.
Why should the third parties pay for the fact that the 'not-at-fault' crashee is a higher risk than than the insurers previously thought?
No doubt some of that extra risk relates to the areas where the car is used, parked, times of use etc but it is still there.
Some of it is undoubtedly due to the crashees' own skill or habits, or lack thereof. In a world of perfect justice of course we would be able to separate truly unavoidable 'no fault' accidents from 'no fault' accidents that the more defensive/skilled/alert driver would probably have avoided.
|
>>the insurers have a statistical basis for regarding a history of no-fault claims as a risk increase
Update
My son's insurer has noted the incident BUT said & will write
"there would be no impact on the premium as the 3rd party insurer have accepted blame without issue".
|
Exactly, some insurers do load, others don't.
I've a suspicion the budget insurers do, and the full fat ones don't. Can't prove it mind you.
|
>> "there would be no impact on the premium as the 3rd party insurer have
>> accepted blame without issue".
Result. Something similar happened to me when my car was hit whilst parked, I slightly knew the other owner who was happy for me to contact their insurer direct. As expected, once they had her truthful account they were eager to help, offering an equivalent hire car, pick up and delivery with no forms to fill in. Far less hassle for me, repairs done quickly, and no worries about the hire costs not being recovered.
What they fear is that your own insurer will flog the "claims management" and they will end up stung with expensive credit hire costs and the rest (personal injury, loss of earnings, hurt feelings and anything else they can solicit).
|
>>Why should the third parties pay for the fact that the 'not-at-fault' crashee is a higher risk than than the insurers previously thought?
Because the 3rd party caused the accident and the extra cost burden on the "not at fault" crashee!
It is damages, just like the physical damage to the car.
|
>>It is damages
That you would have to pay back if you changed your insurance company, if insurance rates didn't keep pace with inflation, if you had a further and more significant claim, which is only quantificable if your current insurer confirms your rates for the next n years, if inflation remains constant, if you don;t change your car, or your drivers etc. etc. etc.
Impractical as a minimum, i would have thought.
|
Because the 3rd party caused the accident and the extra cost burden on the "not at fault" crashee!
But the insurer's reasoning is that, since not-at-fault crashee represents a higher risk than no-crashee-at-allee, all the third party crasher has done is to reveal the risk that was already there. Neat.
|
Internet speeds up Insurance claim + repair quotes - Bromptonaut
