How is this allowed?
03 February 2004, 04:30 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
How is this allowed?
About 6 months ago, a woman in a Mercedes drove into the left hand corner of my rear bumper on a roundabout. After recieving my repair estimate (only £234), her husband (who's policy it is) decided it was my fault (despite not being in the car at the time) and demanded that we go through insurance companies to settle. Six months on, because of the dispute in liability, and a very slow solocitor, nothing has been settled, although they are now offering a 50/50 settlement which I'm not willing to accept.
The reason I'm not willing to accept it, is due to the huuuuge increase in annual premium demanded by my insurance company a few weeks following the accident (bad timing). It went from an expected max figure of £1500, to being over £3500. This figure apparently, is based on the possibility of the third party having to make a claim against my insurance company. This figure does not change, even in the event of a 50/50 settlement, my no claims being put back to 1 year!!! How am I over £2000 worth of increased risk after such an incident? I have had no other claims ever, and my licence is completely clean.
What I object to most though, is the way that the insurance world seems to be able to conlcude that you are at fault (ie guilty) before being proven otherwise. Just a few weeks into the claim we were, before I had to renew my policy, and despite all the evidence submitted by myself, and the fact that any sort of conclusion had yet to be reached, my Insurance company saw fit to load my premium up because there is a 'chance' that the third party will be claiming against them.
When everywhere else operates under the principal of innocent until proven guilty, how is the allowed?
Just had to get that off my chest.
The reason I'm not willing to accept it, is due to the huuuuge increase in annual premium demanded by my insurance company a few weeks following the accident (bad timing). It went from an expected max figure of £1500, to being over £3500. This figure apparently, is based on the possibility of the third party having to make a claim against my insurance company. This figure does not change, even in the event of a 50/50 settlement, my no claims being put back to 1 year!!! How am I over £2000 worth of increased risk after such an incident? I have had no other claims ever, and my licence is completely clean.
What I object to most though, is the way that the insurance world seems to be able to conlcude that you are at fault (ie guilty) before being proven otherwise. Just a few weeks into the claim we were, before I had to renew my policy, and despite all the evidence submitted by myself, and the fact that any sort of conclusion had yet to be reached, my Insurance company saw fit to load my premium up because there is a 'chance' that the third party will be claiming against them.
When everywhere else operates under the principal of innocent until proven guilty, how is the allowed?
Just had to get that off my chest.
03 February 2004, 06:12 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know how you feel m8.
Some t!t pulled out on me on my bike (brand new duke 996 when they had just come out). I tried to go round the back of him (which I would of managed if had not stopped) anyway I whacked the side of him and wrote the bike off.
The grief that caused was unreal. I was held at fault until it was sorted. I just could not believe that my bike was in the side of a car that was half way across the road, and it was my fault, even my solicitor told me to accept 70-30. I was not going to accept any blame (if he had not pulled out I would not of crashed), and had to argue nearly to the doors of the courtroom, I the end I won.
Now you try insuring a superbike without any no claims and a recent accident it's even worse than a Scooby
just keep going at them (the insurers)
Some t!t pulled out on me on my bike (brand new duke 996 when they had just come out). I tried to go round the back of him (which I would of managed if had not stopped) anyway I whacked the side of him and wrote the bike off.
The grief that caused was unreal. I was held at fault until it was sorted. I just could not believe that my bike was in the side of a car that was half way across the road, and it was my fault, even my solicitor told me to accept 70-30. I was not going to accept any blame (if he had not pulled out I would not of crashed), and had to argue nearly to the doors of the courtroom, I the end I won.
Now you try insuring a superbike without any no claims and a recent accident it's even worse than a Scooby
just keep going at them (the insurers)
04 February 2004, 06:16 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Wales - Stuck on this rollercoaster, get me off!!
Posts: 5,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is terrible when this happen's, why people can not admit to their mistakes and take it on the chin is beyond me, this is what puts premium's up. No one wins in the end apart from the solicitors. Don't let your insurance settle it 50/50, if you have to, it will go to court proceedings being issued, so prepare to go. Your proberly find it won't go that far and hopefully the other party's insurance co will settle you companies outlay in full.
If all else fails and it goes 50/50, find out what your insurance companies outlay is and you can settle this with them and get you NCD reinstated. Do make sure the claim outlay does not outway the premium increase difference.
As for why any Insurance company treats customers guilty first rather than innocent. Can you imagine what it would be like collecting the extra premiums due if their customer was found guilty, a big task and the forseen problem of people not paying, which most likely would get passed back to the consumer through higher premiums.
I hope this has been of some help and you get your claim sorted our satisfactory.
simb
If all else fails and it goes 50/50, find out what your insurance companies outlay is and you can settle this with them and get you NCD reinstated. Do make sure the claim outlay does not outway the premium increase difference.
As for why any Insurance company treats customers guilty first rather than innocent. Can you imagine what it would be like collecting the extra premiums due if their customer was found guilty, a big task and the forseen problem of people not paying, which most likely would get passed back to the consumer through higher premiums.
I hope this has been of some help and you get your claim sorted our satisfactory.
simb
04 February 2004, 06:47 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Thanks Simb. I'm still not sure I agree with the principal of being guilty first. Anyway, my solicitor has suggested it might be possible for us both to walk away from the whole thing, accepting losses, and avoiding the insurance issues. I just want this to be resolved as quickly as possible now, and I'll accept the hit of my £234 damages to do it. If the third party involved isn't prepared to accept this, then I'll be seeing them in court, and they can decided where the blame lies.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pro-Line Motorsport
Car Parts For Sale
2
29 September 2015 07:36 PM