Flood damaged motor vehicles.

[Cheshire Cat]

Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

You've been following my dad again!!!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Blimey I'm sorry to hear that about your son, that's horrific.



I'm not surprised premiums go up, any excuse.

My hypothetical point is now real for [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION].

Could he claim that he's not solely responsible for that specific accident, therefore not liable for the damage to her car.
Citing the 'victims' history regarding similar accidents?

OK, all jokes aside, that's really crap, and as @ Stat Brother makes clear, its all about risk assessment with the assessment done on the basis of probabilities.

In my case, I think its fair to say I have been a serial risk taker, and I'm now doing my best to behave.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

OK, all jokes aside, that's really crap, and as @ Stat Brother makes clear, its all about risk assessment with the assessment done on the basis of probabilities.

In my case, I think its fair to say I have been a serial risk taker, and I'm now doing my best to behave.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Mostly . . . .

 

[Garage_Doors]

Blimey I'm sorry to hear that about your son, that's horrific.

It is, he has 4-5" of bone missing from the lower leg that has to be re grown. All because a car driver didn't look.

 

[drew]

Yes his insurance premiums would increase, as mine did a few years ago.
On the Saturday i was knocked off my bike and then two days later a truck took the front of my car off, both were non fault accidents and in both case the other parties accepted liability.
But when it came to renew next year my premiums had increased due to these accidents.
When speaking to the insurers its because its all down to risk, although my no claims bonus was not affected the premiums were higher as i was seen as a higher "risk" because of the accidents.
Although i was not at fault, because i was in a position, ie location, time of day etc to have the accident then my "risk" is higher hence the higher premiums, no matter how i argued that i was being penalised for accidents not of my making was told, that how insurance works ??

In the same way my son was knocked off his motorbike 12 weeks ago a week after passing his car driving test, we had his car ready to insure it, but subsequently he will not be able to walk for another 12-18 months hence not be able to drive a manual car, we have now got him an auto car but because the claim against the third party who has accepted liability( Police prosecuting for Careless driving) will not be settled for at least 3-4 years because of his injuries

On the insurance he has to put down he has had an accident with injuries unsettled, not provision for "non fault" so his premiums more than double from £1300 to £2,500 because some one hit him. And solicitor advises it not possible to claims for insurance premium adjustments within the claim for damages.
Insurance is ass

I assume you switched insurers then?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

One day u might have the opportunity of being an 'old duffer' ....I'll take a different angle for the point of discussion and mention those drivers who allow no margin for error or expect us all to do 0 to 60 in 2 seconds across a busy roundabout

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

As said I didnt do anything wrong.
But I'd be amazed if the other car doesn't have its own bay at a local body shop.

I guess I'm asking how many accidents that weren't you 'fault', can you have before the insurance industry questions the 'innocent victim'.

I was hit by some bellend who decided to overtake me whilst I was giving way to oncoming traffic...I got a tiny, and I mean TINY dent to my wheel arch. The other clown immediately filed a whiplash claim for 4k and claimed his work as a hairdresser had been massively affected. I told my insurers that he would have to see me in court with all of his medical evidence as it was his fault. They didn't pay out but it was a massive hassle.

 

[Stat Brother]

It is, he has 4-5" of bone missing from the lower leg that has to be re grown. All because a car driver didn't look.

This'll not be the thread for me and Harry to be pissing around with our 'funniest car accidents', then.

 

[father_and_son]

Does anyone have (just out of interest) any idea how motor insurance works on flood damaged vehicles ? Some of these pictures that we are seeing from places like York show vehicles submerged (and York has been flooded before) so how does it work ?

Disclosure: I am the Chief Underwriting Officer for a motor insurance company - I won't use this chance to advertise which one - so I do speak from a position of knowledge.

As a policyholder you have an obligation to take all reasonable precautions to avoid the need to make a claim. If your car is parked somewhere that it is known is about to flood, ie there is a Met Office 'Red' warning in place, then it is reasonable to expect you to move the vehicle to safety and avoid having to make a claim. However, if the flooding is 'sudden and unforeseen' then you couldn't have been expected to move the vehicle.

The time between the flood warning being issued and the flood happening will be a mitigating factor... you can't move all your valuables to an upper storey AND move you car to a nearby hill when you only have a limited time before the waters hit and it would be reasonable to expect your to protect against the [higher cost] flood claim as a priority.

 

[Garage_Doors]

I assume you switched insurers then?

Yes, but using the 3 comparison sites i tried them all first as test only putting in no accidents, then getting them all to re quotes with the non fault accidents and all bar none came back significantly dearer.
I did change insurer but it still cost me considerably more.

 

[Garage_Doors]

This'll not be the thread for me and Harry to be pissing around with our 'funniest car accidents', then.

No its ok its not personal

 

[LamieRobertson]

Disclosure: I am the Chief Underwriting Officer for a motor insurance company - I won't use this chance to advertise which one - so I do speak from a position of knowledge.

As a policyholder you have an obligation to take all reasonable precautions to avoid the need to make a claim. If your car is parked somewhere that it is known is about to flood, ie there is a Met Office 'Red' warning in place, then it is reasonable to expect you to move the vehicle to safety and avoid having to make a claim. However, if the flooding is 'sudden and unforeseen' then you couldn't have been expected to move the vehicle.

The time between the flood warning being issued and the flood happening will be a mitigating factor... you can't move all your valuables to an upper storey AND move you car to a nearby hill when you only have a limited time before the waters hit and it would be reasonable to expect your to protect against the [higher cost] flood claim as a priority.

Ohhh can I pick your brains....I understand if u'd rather not...but my sons car was damaged whilst parked...the offender admitted it and confirmed by email...my sons insurer said the email isen't of much use...is this true?

TIA

 

[father_and_son]

Whilst on the subject of motor insurance, can anyone answer this:-

Just before Christmas I was one back on a busy roundabout.
As a gap appeared I went to move forward, but the car in pole position didn't move.

Had I gone into the back of the silly old duffer, I'd have taken responsibility, with all that entails.

So far so good.

The thing is, now I'm once bitten twice shy, with good reason.
It turns out the old fogey needed all the cars of West Sussex off the road before undertaking such a dangerous maneuver.

I'm now following him for a couple of junctions and this guy is obviously an accident waiting to happen.

So back to my original non-crash.

If I happened to have been, say, the third 'guilty' driver to crash into this idiot, this year.

Are all 3 of us liable, even though a clear pattern is forming with one obvious connection?

Could I expect one of the two insurance companies to flag this up?

As above - I have been in Motor Pricing/Underwriting for many years (too many perhaps).

All insurance companies will use a prior accident history as a rating factor.

If you've had one 'non-fault' claim in the past 3 (or 5, depending on the insurer) then, almost all will not apply a load - you've been unlucky (and statistically, that one claim is not predictive of their being another claim in the next year).

If you've had 2 or more non-fault claims then, statistically, you are more likely (than someone with 0 or 1 claims) to have a FAULT claim in the next year and cost the insurer money, therefore, there will be a load on your premium (and some won't even offer cover).

The more non-fault claims you have the higher the probability of another claim and so the load increases (and less and less insurers will take on the risk).


If you change insurance companies and don't disclose the fact that you have been involved in previous accidents then you are committing fraud and the insurers do share data about this. There is a database called CUE (Claims and Underwriting Exchange) that records most insurance claims (there are a few insurers who don't add their information so if both parties are with one of these insurers then the claim is never recorded).

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Thanks. But it makes sense that its the person behind who takes the rap.

I totally agree. The fault would have been mine, however just suddenly stopping for no reason on a roundabout is definitely a no-no.

 

[Garage_Doors]

If you've had one 'non-fault' claim in the past 3 (or 5, depending on the insurer) then, almost all will not apply a load - you've been unlucky (and statistically, that one claim is not predictive of their being another claim in the next year).

If you've had 2 or more non-fault claims then, statistically, you are more likely (than someone with 0 or 1 claims) to have a FAULT claim in the next year and cost the insurer money, therefore, there will be a load on your premium (and some won't even offer cover).

.

This is exactly what i have experienced as posted above.

 

[father_and_son]

Ohhh can I pick your brains....I understand if u'd rather not...but my sons car was damaged whilst parked...the offender admitted it and confirmed by email...my sons insurer said the email isen't of much use...is this true?

TIA

What should happen is your son makes a claim under his own policy and his insurer will, in turn, attempt to make a recovery from the other diver's insurer. When [if] they get all the money they paid out back, they would refund your son's excess and mark the claim as 'non-fault' (see previous post about having lots of non-fault claims).

If the other insurer disputes liability either completely... "it wasn't our customer"... or claims 'contributory negligence'... "he parked like a tw*t and our client did everything he could but couldn't avoid an accident"... then they might not get all the money back and so the claim stays as 'fault', your son never gets his excess back and, possibly, loses no claims discount.

Emails are very easy to fake and so carry very little weight in the negotiations between insurers (because they hold very little weight in court), so without an actual witness, it is very difficult for your son's insurer to force the driver's insurer to admit liability (even though the driver has!). The only thing that will carry weight is if the driver admitted liability on a claim form (if one was ever completed) or in a phone conversation with either insurer (which will have been recorded).

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Have to say,two claims in ten years. One 50/50 fault.other no fault (other insurer settled) just like the NFU,

 

[studio150]

Disclosure: I am the Chief Underwriting Officer for a motor insurance company - I won't use this chance to advertise which one - so I do speak from a position of knowledge.

As a policyholder you have an obligation to take all reasonable precautions to avoid the need to make a claim. If your car is parked somewhere that it is known is about to flood, ie there is a Met Office 'Red' warning in place, then it is reasonable to expect you to move the vehicle to safety and avoid having to make a claim. However, if the flooding is 'sudden and unforeseen' then you couldn't have been expected to move the vehicle.

The time between the flood warning being issued and the flood happening will be a mitigating factor... you can't move all your valuables to an upper storey AND move you car to a nearby hill when you only have a limited time before the waters hit and it would be reasonable to expect your to protect against the [higher cost] flood claim as a priority.

I can only assume that the company you work for is one that looks to decline as many claims as possible as opposed to one that treats customers fairly. On the basis that you will look to decline all claims where vehicles are damaged by flood on the basis that the vehicle has not been moved to higher ground is just plain daft.

I would expect that the first complaint you receive that is referred to the FOS will be lost, as they will not see the policyholders action as unreasonable in not moving the vehicle. The contract of insurance will say that you will pay for loss of or damage to the vehicle, rather than looking to decline reasonable claims, you should be adhering to the contract.

Fortunately I am not insured with your company and instead am insured with a far more enlightened company.

 

[SBarlow]

Disclosure: I am the Chief Underwriting Officer for a motor insurance company - I won't use this chance to advertise which one - so I do speak from a position of knowledge.

As a policyholder you have an obligation to take all reasonable precautions to avoid the need to make a claim. If your car is parked somewhere that it is known is about to flood, ie there is a Met Office 'Red' warning in place, then it is reasonable to expect you to move the vehicle to safety and avoid having to make a claim. However, if the flooding is 'sudden and unforeseen' then you couldn't have been expected to move the vehicle.

The time between the flood warning being issued and the flood happening will be a mitigating factor... you can't move all your valuables to an upper storey AND move you car to a nearby hill when you only have a limited time before the waters hit and it would be reasonable to expect your to protect against the [higher cost] flood claim as a priority.

If you don't mind my asking an off topic question, has the insurance act changes altered policy wordings and/or pricingin your experience? I know a lot of the changes are aimed at non-consumer insurance.

I ask as I work in the run-off market so haven't encountered recent policies yet but will do in the future.